llmslave2

Affinity used to be good, now it's Canva++ with AI. Disgusting work

> while a different set of skills are improving (the skill of getting an LLM to produce functional output

Lmaooooo

Yep. I'd say it's an order of magnitude more effort to read code you haven't written too, compared to reading code you wrote. So there is approximately zero chance the people using AI to generate code are reading it at a level where they actually understand it, or else they would lose all of their supposed productivity gains.

I actually don't think they would agree with most of this. Why would you think that?

Yes, they don't care about the contents as long as the code appears to work correctly in the happy path, they ignore edge cases and bugs an mark the ticket as solved and move on, leaving an broken, unmaintainable mess in their wake.

These are exactly the types of people who LOVE ai because it produces code of similar quality an functionality that they would produce by hand.

Good news: the evidence points to it being slower than non-ai workflows. So we're destroying our economy, society, and planet to make worse software, more slowly! :)

I thought the article was going to be about AI zealotry but it was just AI zealotry.

ensloppification

> Question is: what changed? New founding round coming up, end of fiscal year, planning for IPO? Do they have to cut losses?

I'm gonna say IPO considering their recent aggressive stealth marking campaign on X, Reddit, and HN.

Anthropic developers run 10 Claude Code instances at once, with unlimited access to the best models.

It's embarrassing because they use Claude Code to build all of their software and they can't write decent software to save their lives. Their software quality is embarrassing, basically Microsoft tier, which calls into question both the effectiveness of their AI products and Agentic workflows.

Like seriously, the creator of CC claims to run 10 simultaneous agents at once. We sure can tell bud.

> More importantly, Anthropic should have open sourced their Claude Code CLI a year ago. (They can and should just open source it now.)

Who cares? Just have Claude vibe code it in an afternoon...

I'm sorry but I'm not going to take "research" about Claude seriously from Anthropic, the company who makes and sells Claude. I'm also not going to do that for Copilot from Microsoft, the company who makes and sells Copilot.

But useful in the context of these debates isn't that it solves any single problem for someone. Nobody is arguing that LLM's have zero utility. So I don't really see what your point is?

Yeah this is the key point. Part of me wonders if it's just 0.1x devs somehow reaching 1.0x productivity...

> To the ones saying it is not working well for them, why don't you show and tell?

Sure, here you go:

Yeah

more code = better software

I've seen some interesting work going the other way, having LLMs generate constraint solvers (or whatever the term is) in prolog and then feeding input to that. I can't remember the link but could be worthwhile searching for that.

They're all marketing slop lol. Go look at their methodology. Absolutely shite.

I actually prefer no syntax highlighting, and I certainly wouldn't make any claims about it being useful. But something being "useful" is often personal - I find IDEs useful, others find Vim useful, maybe one is better or worse than the other or maybe we're all different and our brains function in different ways and that explains the difference.

With assembly versus say, Go for writing a web server? That's trivially observable, good luck arguing against that one.

Theo is the type of programmer where you don't care when he boos you, because you know what makes him cheer.

Do you just believe everything everybody says? No quantifiable data required, as long as someone somewhere says it it must be true?

One of the reasons software is in decline is because it's all vibes, nobody has much interest in conducting research to find anything out. It doesn't have to be some double blinded peer reviewed meta analysis, the bar can still be low, it just should be higher than "I feel like"...

If you point a spectrometer at the sky during the day in non-cloudy conditions you will observe readings peaking in the roughly 450-495 nanometers range, which crazily enough, is the definition of the colour blue [0]!

Then you can research Rayleigh scattering, of which consists of a large body of academic research not just confirming that the sky is blue, but also why.

But hey, if you want to claim the sky is red because you feel like it is, go ahead. Most people won't take you seriously just like they don't take similar claims about AI seriously.

[0] https://scied.ucar.edu/image/wavelength-blue-and-red-light-i...

Paste this conversation into ChatGPT and have it explain what I said because I just can't be arsed to correct you any longer.

Doesn't that mean you're less likely to catch bugs and other issues that the AI spits out?

No, it's that it's hypocritical to make a bunch of unfounded claims and then whine that someone who is conducting actual research and trying to be objective isn't doing it well enough or whatever.

Nobody is pretending that's the case...

"don't make mistakes" LMAO

Nobody is saying LLM's can never be helpful, it's skepticism towards certain claims made around agentic workflows re. programming, such as claims of massively increased productivity or the idea that agents will replace most if not all programmers.