it's not like this. You need a very good product that solves a real pain much better than competitors and word of mouth will work wonders with a little marketing push.
Since I was 17 I built projects and sold some kind of digital product, from desktop apps to services and finally a 8 figure exit of a web app.
In my first 20 years of trials i made enough to support myself, i had multiple projects + consulting work that got me some money. I tried everything, but I got better and better on spotting what works.
I didn't chase unicorns, I chase things that I needed personally in my projects and also had an established market. I found out that building simpler, improved and niched versions of bigger products gives me a higher chance of making higher revenue faster. This was before the indie hacker movement started.
Eventually one of my many projects grew faster than previous trials and I knew something is there. 7 years later I had a 8 figure exit with a team of 20 people, 100% owned and fully bootstrapped.
Was luck involved? Maybe, but after 20 years of grinding was it more luck or persistence and continuous learning? How many opportunities for finding "luck" would someone that tried methodically for 20 years to launch a successful business will get?
The only reason that's on top of HN is that people really want Mythos to be bad. This "study" is a cheap gimmick, they pointed to the actual location with the vulnerability and said "something is bad here, find it".
The hardest part is locating the issue, if you point directly to it, you're not comparing the same thing by far, and they know it. This was just a stunt by them to get publicity, they knew what they were doing and many fell for it, including here.
Why this was such a big deal? Haven't people reach the moon so many years ago? By this time we should have lunar bases, not cheer so much that we got past the moon at a few thousands miles away.
you are overestimating the skill of code review. Some people have very specific ways of writing code and solving problems which are not aligned what LLMs wrote, but doesn't mean it's wrong.
I know senior developers that are very radical on some nonsense patterns they think are much better than others. If they see code that don't follow them, they say it's trash.
Even so, you can guide the LLM to write the code as you like.
And you are wrong, it's a lot on how people write the prompt.
most developers are still in denial. Many are afraid of job loss or the corporations are forcing AI without clear scopes and proper implementation, which results in a mess. Small teams for small-medium products are productive as hell with AI.
I'm very very sure. Based on my last 15 years of coding experience I can assist fairly accurate how much a task takes. With AI I can finish the task 2x-4x faster (this includes testing, edge case handling etc).