The difference is the destination. Me crunching code with llms vs you doing the same thing will lead both of us to different places(let’s say equally fast for the sake of the conversation). What will set us apart in the end is who will actually sell it, and that’s llm-independent.
“everyone”. it’s there, it’s accessible, it’s “cheap”. acceleration will depend on the operator capability. if the final product will make a diff in the real world, it will ALWAYS depend on the entrepreneur, not the tools used.
Assumption: now everyone can do more of the above. The final line is still selling. So everyone will get to the sales part, FASTER. Triage will still happen at this stage, regardless of AI. You won’t be able to avoid this triage, regardless of how fast you get there.
What i meant was: your experience might not be representative of the coding models capabilities. At least based on the poor examples in the post, you’re just scratching the surface of learning how to extract value from them, and, as i understand, you gave up and shared your experience. Given that you fully understand how an LLM works(and you do) it might also be that you’re using it outside training data. Not all code is equally represented(quality/quantity) in the training data, like there’s not the same amount of latin text as opposed to english text there(it’s all gravy to an LLM). You also suggested that manual might be faster and better quality - in MY experience, this is just you (using search through prompts), using it wrong.
Do you pay your employer when you introduce bugs?
I think you're lucky if you get usable output which you don't consider a mistake.
Also, you might be mistaken if you think that you pay for a deterministic service.
If you built it FOR someone(a business), you are already on the wrong path. You should have built it WITH someone(a business) and you'd already have feedback and real world usage. Maybe next time around start with a real problem (confirmed by a business) rather than how you want the world to work.
The critique of metadata being hard is fair, the claim that sealed sender is “totally useless” is not. It’s a small, incremental hardening step in a very messy design space, not a magic invisibility cloak, and judging it as the latter sets the bar unrealistically high for anything that still wants to be a drop-in WhatsApp replacement.
I use a regular 3kg 17” macbook pro from ~2007. Beautiful keyboard, good enough resolution, wifi off(not much use on the internet anyway). Still modern ux and good trackpad.
I think you are making the wrong assumption that Apple is building the computers that people are vocal about or ask for. Nobody asked for any of the computers they are selling today, but some users have some wishes, sure.