upvote

points

by AdieuToLogic15 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jitl14 hours ago|
next
[-]
fixing minor bugs takes one slack message for us now. bugs go down, goodness go up.

fixing more serious regression also easier. connect honeycomb mcp, ask agent to debug while i walk to coffee and get some pistachio rose dates. by time im back with my oat latte ive got a full report on what happened and can send the next slack message to fix.

life is good

reply
upvoteby sixothree14 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I needed to deeply understand a code base I had no experience with in a language I don't normally use with what I would describe as haphazard documentation at best. You can't argue with the speed at which I gained the required understanding of the project.
reply
upvoteby echelon14 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
In the time it took you to type that, your hourly market comp went down another basis point.

I am appalled none of this is clicking with you anti-AI folks. This is all so exciting -- alarming even! --, and software careers are never going to be the same.

I don't know how you just metaphorically stand there and act like nothing at all is happening. We've never seen anything like this in our entire lives.

Some of you are standing right in front of the steam roller, yelling to all of us that steam rollers aren't real.

reply
upvoteby CookieCrisp14 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Very very fast steam rollers.
reply
upvoteby AdieuToLogic14 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Nice strawman[0], but you avoided answering my core question:

  Speed of what?
With ad hominems and a non sequitur. How about I narrow the question with the hope it engenders a relevant response:

  How do LLMs increase the speed of a person understanding
  what needs to be done?
0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
reply
upvoteby CookieCrisp14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This argument feels like

A: The sky is blue! B: No it's not. A: Yes, it is, please look up. B: No, you must prove it to me through reason. A: But, if you would just pretty please look up. B: No.

I run a company, I've been running it for 10 years, we do alright. I'm a shitty manager. Every time I've hired developers, the business freezes. The business isn't anything super important, the main consequence of bugs is that my family loses money. Everything has always rested on my shoulders. In theory there is some path for me to become a good manager, but I never landed on it. But now, with Claude, it's great. So far Claude has paid itself off in real profits at least 20x over, and that's with significant API usage on top of the monthly sub. I can prototype new features in an afternoon that before were on my giant list of "maybe somedays if I ever get to breathe" list. Our user experience has improved in so many ways that I knew were probably worth it, if I could just find the time. Now I can.

There are situations where yeah, it probably isn't ready yet. But, there are so many where it's amazing. Seriously, it's worth looking up.

reply
upvoteby dgellow13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You’re just plain wrong to assume people against agentic development do not have experience with the technology
reply
upvoteby CookieCrisp13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think there are many valid reasons to be against them - I think a lot of them are more right than wrong. It’s the “It can’t really do much” that I think must be from people that haven’t really tried it.
reply
upvoteby AdieuToLogic13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is a great case for the benefits of using GenAI, in that you already possess an understanding of what you want to achieve. You know what it is you want to prototype, what is on your "giant list of 'maybe somedays if I ever get to breathe' list", what you want to end up delivering.

My point is and remains:

  A) GenAI did not give you this understanding.
  B) GenAI can only assist in your expressing this
     preexisting understanding.
  C) GenAI is a statistical token (text) generator and
     cannot, by definition, "make" a person understand
     what they want/need to do.
reply
upvoteby CookieCrisp13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Ideas and functionality beget more ideas and functionality
reply
upvoteby llama05214 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Did you use an LLM to write this for you? How odd.

For all of you people who think these LLM models are “earth shattering” how the hell do you reconcile that it’s a net positive for anyone but those who want to consolidate knowledge and power.

We are really looking at idiocracy in the making.

reply
upvoteby tskj10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I guess I'll chime in as someone who thinks LLMs will be earth shattering, and specifically don't think it's a net positive for anyone but those whose power will be consolidated.
reply