is this joke?
Here we are talking about trillon dollar AI companies who claim AI can fix decade old bugs and create new compilers, OSs and what not. Are parallel agents working autonomously to fix issues as well as create new features not allowed at these companies?
Why do you "have to decide"? Let some agents go at both of those, isn't that what they claim people can just do?
>Also, Codex and Claude Code aren't as bad as people say. I think most of the noise is embellished by the "hah see? AI sucks" angle.
Why shouldn't it? They're not the ones making the extraordinary claims.
Because your code is still marching somewhere in tokens per second. You have to decide where they are allocated: polish or the next thing. Humans still are the ones prompting LLMs and deciding what is done.
> isn't that what they claim? Why shouldn't it? They're not the ones making the extraordinary claims.
Even if I grant that someone else makes excessive claims, why would that let you off the hook to stay grounded?
Though I don't grant it. Maybe if Anthropic claimed that Opus makes all decisions at the company and builds all software without humans doing all the prompting, the critics would make more sense.
Until then, it looks more like a double standard: if software built with AI has any issues, then see, AI is shit and the humans who invoked it had no role in it. e.g. it could be the case that Anthropic's Claude Code engineers just aren't doing as much polish as they should.
Better answer: Someone asked why might it be the case that AI-written software has issues, and it has a real answer. Marketing claims are a different conversation.
Or to be upstanding, ethical companies that they are. Just put disclaimer after every prompt response and on their website "AI generated code has no absolutely no guarantee of quality or correctness. Human prompter must be held accountable for any mistake or inaccuracies."
Hope it wouldn't be too much bother to these important companies.
1) No more human written code in projects, all code must be AI generated.
2) Developers are responsible for all code AI generated.
Combine that with fear of losing job and you have no one calling out management bullshit on their face.
It is obviously the case that you can both delegate code implementation to AI and also be responsible for it. You are signing off on the code you submit to a project no matter where you got it from nor how it was generated nor who you delegated the task to ("actually my friend wrote it so if it sucks don't look at me").
AI didn't change this, nor will it until there are no more humans in the loop.