upvote

points

by shinryuu7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby mistersquid6 hours ago|
next
[-]
> 100x is achieving something in two days, what it took an entire year before.

Reduce your scale: "100x achieves in 1 hour what used to take 1 week."

One year of work could require levels of complexity and human judgement that can't be accelerated past a certain point.

1 week of work can be reduced to an hour and some change.

reply
upvoteby shinryuu6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That requires that you not only one-shot the thing. You will also not have the time to verify the solution yourself in that time period.

Besides 1h what used to to take 1 week is basically 40x given a workweek is 40h.

reply
upvoteby freeopinion4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Ignoring the obvious math problem here, I think the broader scope is important. Some of the point from preceding comments is that overall longterm output is not changing. So if somebody is oneshotting a week of work in an hour, but has the same annual output... where are you losing all the normal productivity that should have happened the rest of the week/year?

If one week of work can be reduced to an hour, then you should be able to complete a year's worth of work in 50 hours. If you break that into two 25-hour weeks (because a 40x dev earns the right to loaf?), what is that dev doing for the other 50 weeks in the year? What is making them so incredibly unproductive 50 out of 52 weeks in a year?

reply
upvoteby fauigerzigerk4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
>One year of work could require levels of complexity and human judgement that can't be accelerated past a certain point.

In other words, if you include everything that's required to create useful software then 100x turns out to be a fantasy.

reply
upvoteby ruszki6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That’s also not possible in “skilled” hands. My output is roughly the same. It does the scaffolding, but I need to rewrite almost every line, because it introduces footguns around that often. And before I had about 20000 LOC it failed even with scaffolding, ie architecture. And it wasn’t taste, just footguns all around, architecture ones. Nowadays for example still introduce mutability or completely unnecessary complexity where it shouldn’t, even when the example code which does almost the same is pristine. Many times it’s like StackOverflow, when a question doesn’t need 90% of the accepted answer, but people happily copy it brainlessly.

This is especially bad with new, or quickly improving frameworks, like Android Compose. LLMs use completely outdated, deprecated APIs all the time, when they are not completely supervised. Or at least, I hope so that the framework causes it. Because if that’s not the case, then your products are fucked.

Also even with the best prompts it could never produce more working code in an hour than what I can produce in a day. Regardless of quality, just “working somehow”. Not even with an uninterrupted session. If that’s the case for some, then there is definitely also a developer skill issue. And so would definitely not trust anything coming out of their “supervision” of an LLM.

reply
upvoteby Kudos6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The baseline engineer in that case must really be something incompetent.
reply
upvoteby kibwen6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ironic. The best way to turn 1x engineers into 100x engineers is to reduce the median skill level by 100x.
reply