3 ms·

No, I'm paid much more to do much more than what I did in this simple task. Claude didn't even test the changes (in this case, it does not have the hardware req

No, I'm paid much more to do much more than what I did in this simple task. Claude didn't even test the changes (in this case, it does not have the hardware required to do that), or decide that the feature needed to be implemented in the first place. But my comparison wasn't "how do I compare to Claude Code", it was "how does Aider compare to Claude Code". My boss does not use Aider or Claude Code, and would not be happy with the results of replacing me with it (yet).

y1n0 2y ago
I think you missed the point. The claim is that it would have cost you more to hire a person to do what either claude code or aider did.
- CGamesPlay 2y ago
  I think I pretty directly addressed that point. Yes, it would be more expensive to hire me to do what Claude Code / Aider did, but nobody would be satisfied with my work if I stopped where Claude Code / Aider did.
  - radlad 2y ago
    They aren't necessarily saying it can replace you. They're saying that even though it's expensive, it's cheaper than your time (which can be better spent on other tasks, as you point out.)
    - codebolt 2y ago
      And with this increase in productivity, your boss needs fewer of you to do the work that would previously require a larger team.
    - baq 2y ago
      The first half is correct, but the conclusions shouldn’t be ‘we’re replicating our software engineers with Claude today’, they’re ‘our experienced engineers just 10x their productivity, we’ll never need to hire an intern’
      - bhaney 2y ago
        You mean "our experienced engineers just 10x'd their productivity, so we can fire 90% of them"
        baq 2y ago
        Nah the value unlock is too great. For now. Don’t quote me next March.
        risyachka 2y ago
        Productivity gains decrease exponentially after a few weeks as your engineering skills become rusty very fast (yes, they do, in 100% cases) Thats the biggest part everyone misses. It’s all sunshine and rainbows until in a month you realize you start asking llm to think for you and at that point the code becomes shit and degrades fast. Like with everything else “use it or lose it” If you don’t code yourself- you will lose the ability to properly so it very fast, and you won’t realize it until too late
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        If you're using the LLM poorly. Many team leads spend very little time programming, and spend a lot of time reviewing code, which is basically what working with LLMs is. If the LLM writes code that you couldn't have written yourself, you aren't qualified to approve it.
        snowwrestler 2y ago
        Accurate only for companies who think today “I have exactly as much engineering talent as I’ll ever need.” Which is approximately zero companies.
      - cloudbonsai 2y ago
        I'm pondering where this "AI-automated programming" trend is heading. For example: thirty years ago, FX trading was executed by a bunch of human traders. Then, computers arrived on the scene, which made all of them practically obsolete. Nowadays FX trading is executed by a collection of automated algorithms, being monitored by few quants. My question is: is the software development in 2025 basically like what the foreign exchange was in the 2000s?
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      This, if you hire engineers, you want them doing tasks only engineers can do, not busy work.
Sterling9x 2y ago
[flagged]
- CGamesPlay 2y ago
  I said that the AI literally does not have the hardware required to do the testing necessary. But ignoring that, automated testing is not sufficient for shipping software. Imagine shipping a website that has full test coverage but never once opening the browser. This isn't a fundamentally impossible problem for AI, but no amount of "good prompting" is going to get you there today.

y1n0 2y ago

I think you missed the point. The claim is that it would have cost you more to hire a person to do what either claude code or aider did.

CGamesPlay 2y ago
I think I pretty directly addressed that point. Yes, it would be more expensive to hire me to do what Claude Code / Aider did, but nobody would be satisfied with my work if I stopped where Claude Code / Aider did.
- radlad 2y ago
  They aren't necessarily saying it can replace you. They're saying that even though it's expensive, it's cheaper than your time (which can be better spent on other tasks, as you point out.)
  - codebolt 2y ago
    And with this increase in productivity, your boss needs fewer of you to do the work that would previously require a larger team.
  - baq 2y ago
    The first half is correct, but the conclusions shouldn’t be ‘we’re replicating our software engineers with Claude today’, they’re ‘our experienced engineers just 10x their productivity, we’ll never need to hire an intern’
    - bhaney 2y ago
      You mean "our experienced engineers just 10x'd their productivity, so we can fire 90% of them"
      - baq 2y ago
        Nah the value unlock is too great. For now. Don’t quote me next March.
      - risyachka 2y ago
        Productivity gains decrease exponentially after a few weeks as your engineering skills become rusty very fast (yes, they do, in 100% cases) Thats the biggest part everyone misses. It’s all sunshine and rainbows until in a month you realize you start asking llm to think for you and at that point the code becomes shit and degrades fast. Like with everything else “use it or lose it” If you don’t code yourself- you will lose the ability to properly so it very fast, and you won’t realize it until too late
        MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
        If you're using the LLM poorly. Many team leads spend very little time programming, and spend a lot of time reviewing code, which is basically what working with LLMs is. If the LLM writes code that you couldn't have written yourself, you aren't qualified to approve it.
      - snowwrestler 2y ago
        Accurate only for companies who think today “I have exactly as much engineering talent as I’ll ever need.” Which is approximately zero companies.
    - cloudbonsai 2y ago
      I'm pondering where this "AI-automated programming" trend is heading. For example: thirty years ago, FX trading was executed by a bunch of human traders. Then, computers arrived on the scene, which made all of them practically obsolete. Nowadays FX trading is executed by a collection of automated algorithms, being monitored by few quants. My question is: is the software development in 2025 basically like what the foreign exchange was in the 2000s?
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    This, if you hire engineers, you want them doing tasks only engineers can do, not busy work.

Sterling9x 2y ago

[flagged]

CGamesPlay 2y ago
I said that the AI literally does not have the hardware required to do the testing necessary. But ignoring that, automated testing is not sufficient for shipping software. Imagine shipping a website that has full test coverage but never once opening the browser. This isn't a fundamentally impossible problem for AI, but no amount of "good prompting" is going to get you there today.