These new AI trends are very tiresome, very similar to 2021 crypto mania - both trigger a lot of FOMO. If we have loops that write code and we don't need to verify anything, why are the devs still here? What's point of even learning this new trick as a dev if you truly believe that this can be used without any intervention? If loops work then it follows that a loop of loop works too - why hire any people at all? Just run a bunch of loops and build a profitable business, but then what's your moat? Any person can now launch loops on top of loops.
He has early access to anthropic models, of course he will hype them up, so that they will keep sharing access to preview models with him (and more traffic to his website). It also does't require him to perform any rigorous analysis of model performance, just share how it feels:
> But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
> Software engineering. During early testing, Stripe reported that Fable 5 compressed months of engineering into days. In a 50-million-line Ruby codebase, the model performed a codebase-wide migration in a day that would otherwise have taken a whole team over two months by hand.
How was it measured? How was the output of this magnitude verified over a period of couple of days?
> Over the past six months, there hasn’t been a single day where I’ve checked the HN Best RSS feed without seeing a post about how AI “writes bad code,” “introduces bugs,” “creates technical debt,” or something along those lines.
because it's true
> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.
How can you guarantee that it works though? You can verify, but it would be at the same speed as before the AI, or even slower.
> By then, enough real-world feedback would have surfaced to identify the major issues, and tools like Claude Code would make it possible to fix and ship version 2.0 at an incredible pace.
By then you have a blackbox of a codebase which is unmaintainable, or in a worst case scenario you end up losing your data or get hacked or both.
This is not a serious analysis. No mention of open source LLMs and their impact on american AI companies. There’s also no evidence that LLMs can make significant scientific progress on their own.
Stack Overflow provides marginal value when there are LLMs. Great technical books on the other hand still provide tremendous value and complement LLMs in a learning process: a book provides a fact checked, curated set of topics with clear start and finish (a structure) and LLMs help with any blockers or missing context that readers will encounter.
What if your screen breaks or logic board? Top of the line MacBooks cost ~4-5k. I recently had to service a battery and they replaced a top case and a keyboard free of charge. I will continue paying for AppleCare as long as they will allow me
Somehow this article is no longer on the first page[0] (or even second) of hn even though it has more upvotes (and is newer) than other articles with less upvotes (or older ones). Is HN hiding politically controversial articles?