4 ms·

GPT-4.1 probably is a distilled version of GPT-4.5 I dont understand the constant complaining about naming conventions. The number system differentiates the mo

GPT-4.1 probably is a distilled version of GPT-4.5 I dont understand the constant complaining about naming conventions. The number system differentiates the models based on capability, any other method would not do that. After ten models with random names like "gemini", "nebula" you would have no idea which is which. Its a low IQ take. You dont name new versions of software as completely different software Also, Yesterday, using v0, I replicated a full nextjs UI copying a major saas player. No backend integration, but the design and UX were stunning, and better than I could do if I tried. I have 15 years of backend experience at FAANG. Software will get automated, and it already is, people just havent figured it out yet

rvz 1y ago
> Yesterday, using v0, I replicated a full nextjs UI copying a major saas player. No backend integration, but the design and UX were stunning, and better than I could do if I tried. Exactly. Those who do frontend or focus on pretty much anything Javascript are, how should I say it? Cooked? > Software will get automated The first to go are those that use JavaScript / TypeScript engineers have already been automated out of a job. It is all over for them.
- codingwagie 1y ago
  Yeah its over for them. Complicated business logic and sprawling systems are what are keeping backend safe for now. But the big front end code bases where individual files (like react components) are largely decoupled from the rest of the code base is why front end is completely cooked
- camdenreslink 1y ago
  I have a medium-sized typescript personal project I work on. It probably has 20k LOC of well organized typescript (react frontend, express backend). I also have somewhat comprehensive docs and cursor project rules. In general I use Cursor in manual mode asking it to make very well scoped small changes (e.g. “write this function that does this in this exact spot”). Yesterday I needed to make a largely mechanical change (change a concept in the front end, make updates to the corresponding endpoints, update the data access methods, update the database schema). This is something very easy I would expect a junior developer to be able to accomplish. It is simple, largely mechanical, but touches a lot of files. Cursor agent mode puked all over itself using Gemini 2.5. It could summarize what changes would need to be made, but it was totally incapable of making the changes. It would add weird hard coded conditions, define new unrelated files, not follow the conventions of the surrounding code at all. TLDR; I think LLMs right now are good for greenfield development (create this front end from scratch following common patterns), and small scoped changes to a few files. If you have any kind of medium sized refactor on an existing code base forget about it.
  - codingwagie 1y ago
    My personal opinion is leveraging LLMs on a large code base requires skill. How you construct the prompt, and what you keep in context, which model you use, all have a large effect on the output. If you just put it into cursor and throw your hands up, you probably didnt do it right
    - camdenreslink 1y ago
      I gave it a list of the changes I needed and pointed it to the area of the different files that needed updated. I also have comprehensive cursor project rules. If I needed to hand hold any more than that it would take considerably less time to just make the changes myself.
  - Philpax 1y ago
    > Cursor agent mode puked all over itself using Gemini 2.5. It could summarize what changes would need to be made, but it was totally incapable of making the changes. Gemini 2.5 is currently broken with the Cursor agent; it doesn't seem to be able to issue tool calls correctly. I've been using Gemini to write plans, which Claude then executes, and this seems to work well as a workaround. Still unfortunate that it's like this, though.
    - camdenreslink 1y ago
      Interesting, I’ve found Gemini better than Claude so I defaulted to that. I’ll try another refactor in agent mode with Claude.
jsheard 1y ago
> using v0, I replicated a full nextjs UI copying a major saas player. No backend integration, but the design and UX were stunning AI is amazing, now all you need to create a stunning UI is for someone else to make it first so an AI can rip it off. Not beating the "plagiarism machine" allegations here.
- codingwagie 1y ago
  Heres a secret: Most of the highest funded VC backed software companies are just copying a competitor with a slight product spin/different pricing model
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    Got any examples?
    - codingwagie 1y ago
      Rippling
  - florakel 1y ago
    Exactly, they like to call it “bringing new energy to an old industry”.
  - singron 1y ago
    > Jim Barksdale, used to say there’s only two ways to make money in business: One is to bundle; the other is unbundle https://a16z.com/the-future-of-work-cars-and-the-wisdom-in-saying-no/ https://a16z.com/the-future-of-work-cars-and-the-wisdom-in-s...
Philpax 1y ago
> The number system differentiates the models based on capability, any other method would not do that. Please rank GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1-nano, GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5, o1-mini, o1, o1 pro, o3-mini, o3-mini-high, o3, and o4-mini in terms of capability without consulting any documentation.
- codingwagie 1y ago
  Very easy with the naming system?
  - bobxmax 1y ago
    Really? Is o3-mini-high better than o1-pro?
    - vbezhenar 1y ago
      In my experience it's better for value/price, but if you just need to solve a problem, o1 pro is the best tool available.
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Btw, as someone who agrees with your point, what’s the actual answer to this?
  - henlobenlo 1y ago
    Whats the problem, for the layman it doesnt actually matter, and for the experts, its usually very obvious which model to use.
    - School-Cotton 1y ago
      That’s not true. I’m a layman and 4.5 is obviously better than 4o for me, definitely enough to matter.
tomrod 1y ago
Just add SemVer with an extra tag: 4.0.5.worsethan4point5
whalesalad 1y ago
> I don't understand the constant complaining about naming conventions. Oh man. Unfolding my lawn chair and grabbing a bucket of popcorn for this discussion.
latexr 1y ago
> You dont name new versions of software as completely different software macOS releases would like a word with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Timeline_of_releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Timeline_of_releases Technically they still have numbers, but Apple hides them in marketing copy. https://www.apple.com/macos/ https://www.apple.com/macos/ Though they still have “macOS” in the name. I’m being tongue-in-cheek.
SubiculumCode 1y ago
Feel free to lay the naming convention rules out for us man.
darksaints 1y ago
[flagged]
- ksec 1y ago
  >Calling different opinions a low IQ take I dont read it to imply like that.
throw1235435 1y ago
> Software will get automated, and it already is, people just havent figured it out yet To be honest I think this is most AI labs (particularly the American ones) not-so-secret goal now, for a number of strong reasons. You can see it in this announcements, Anthrophic's recent Claude 3.7 announcement, OpenAI's first planned agent (SWE-Agent), etc etc. They have to justify their worth somehow and they see it as a potential path to do that. Remains to be seen how far they will get - I hope I'm wrong. The reasons however for picking this path IMO are: - Their usage statistics show coding as the main user: Anthrophic recently released their stats. Its become the main usage of these models, with other usages at best being novelty or conveniences for people in relative size. Without this market IMO the hype would of already fizzled awhile ago at best a novelty when looking at the rest of the user base size. - They "smell blood" to disrupt and fear is very effective to promote their product: This IMO is the biggest one. Disrupting software looks to be an achievable goal, but it also is a goal that has high engagement compared to other use cases. No point solving something awesome if people don't care, or only care for awhile (e.g. meme image generation). You can see the developers on this site and elsewhere in fear. Fear is the best marketing tool ever and engagement can last years. It keeps people engaged and wanting to know more; and talking about how "they are cooked" almost to the exclusion of everything else (i.e. focusing on the threat). Nothing motivates you to know a product more than not being able to provide for yourself, your family, etc to the point that most other tech topics/innovations are being drowned out by AI announcements. - Many of them are losing money and need a market to disrupt: Currently the existing use cases of a chat bot are not yet impressive enough (or haven't been till very recently) to justify the massive valuations of these companies. Its coding that is allowing them to bootstrap into other domains. - It is a domain they understand: AI dev's know models, they understand the software process. It may be a complex domain requiring constant study, but they know it back to front. This makes it a good first case for disruption where the data, and the know how is already with the teams. TL;DR: They are coming after you, because it is a big fruit that is easier to pick for them than other domains. Its also one that people will notice either out of excitement (CEO, VC's, Management, etc) or out of fear (tech workers, academics, other intellectual workers).

rvz 1y ago

> Yesterday, using v0, I replicated a full nextjs UI copying a major saas player. No backend integration, but the design and UX were stunning, and better than I could do if I tried. Exactly. Those who do frontend or focus on pretty much anything Javascript are, how should I say it? Cooked? > Software will get automated The first to go are those that use JavaScript / TypeScript engineers have already been automated out of a job. It is all over for them.

codingwagie 1y ago
Yeah its over for them. Complicated business logic and sprawling systems are what are keeping backend safe for now. But the big front end code bases where individual files (like react components) are largely decoupled from the rest of the code base is why front end is completely cooked
camdenreslink 1y ago
I have a medium-sized typescript personal project I work on. It probably has 20k LOC of well organized typescript (react frontend, express backend). I also have somewhat comprehensive docs and cursor project rules. In general I use Cursor in manual mode asking it to make very well scoped small changes (e.g. “write this function that does this in this exact spot”). Yesterday I needed to make a largely mechanical change (change a concept in the front end, make updates to the corresponding endpoints, update the data access methods, update the database schema). This is something very easy I would expect a junior developer to be able to accomplish. It is simple, largely mechanical, but touches a lot of files. Cursor agent mode puked all over itself using Gemini 2.5. It could summarize what changes would need to be made, but it was totally incapable of making the changes. It would add weird hard coded conditions, define new unrelated files, not follow the conventions of the surrounding code at all. TLDR; I think LLMs right now are good for greenfield development (create this front end from scratch following common patterns), and small scoped changes to a few files. If you have any kind of medium sized refactor on an existing code base forget about it.
- codingwagie 1y ago
  My personal opinion is leveraging LLMs on a large code base requires skill. How you construct the prompt, and what you keep in context, which model you use, all have a large effect on the output. If you just put it into cursor and throw your hands up, you probably didnt do it right
  - camdenreslink 1y ago
    I gave it a list of the changes I needed and pointed it to the area of the different files that needed updated. I also have comprehensive cursor project rules. If I needed to hand hold any more than that it would take considerably less time to just make the changes myself.
- Philpax 1y ago
  > Cursor agent mode puked all over itself using Gemini 2.5. It could summarize what changes would need to be made, but it was totally incapable of making the changes. Gemini 2.5 is currently broken with the Cursor agent; it doesn't seem to be able to issue tool calls correctly. I've been using Gemini to write plans, which Claude then executes, and this seems to work well as a workaround. Still unfortunate that it's like this, though.
  - camdenreslink 1y ago
    Interesting, I’ve found Gemini better than Claude so I defaulted to that. I’ll try another refactor in agent mode with Claude.

jsheard 1y ago

> using v0, I replicated a full nextjs UI copying a major saas player. No backend integration, but the design and UX were stunning AI is amazing, now all you need to create a stunning UI is for someone else to make it first so an AI can rip it off. Not beating the "plagiarism machine" allegations here.

codingwagie 1y ago
Heres a secret: Most of the highest funded VC backed software companies are just copying a competitor with a slight product spin/different pricing model
- School-Cotton 1y ago
  Got any examples?
  - codingwagie 1y ago
    Rippling
- florakel 1y ago
  Exactly, they like to call it “bringing new energy to an old industry”.
- singron 1y ago
  > Jim Barksdale, used to say there’s only two ways to make money in business: One is to bundle; the other is unbundle https://a16z.com/the-future-of-work-cars-and-the-wisdom-in-saying-no/ https://a16z.com/the-future-of-work-cars-and-the-wisdom-in-s...

Philpax 1y ago

> The number system differentiates the models based on capability, any other method would not do that. Please rank GPT-4, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1-nano, GPT-4.1-mini, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5, o1-mini, o1, o1 pro, o3-mini, o3-mini-high, o3, and o4-mini in terms of capability without consulting any documentation.

codingwagie 1y ago
Very easy with the naming system?
- bobxmax 1y ago
  Really? Is o3-mini-high better than o1-pro?
  - vbezhenar 1y ago
    In my experience it's better for value/price, but if you just need to solve a problem, o1 pro is the best tool available.
School-Cotton 1y ago
Btw, as someone who agrees with your point, what’s the actual answer to this?
- henlobenlo 1y ago
  Whats the problem, for the layman it doesnt actually matter, and for the experts, its usually very obvious which model to use.
  - School-Cotton 1y ago
    That’s not true. I’m a layman and 4.5 is obviously better than 4o for me, definitely enough to matter.

tomrod 1y ago

Just add SemVer with an extra tag: 4.0.5.worsethan4point5

whalesalad 1y ago

> I don't understand the constant complaining about naming conventions. Oh man. Unfolding my lawn chair and grabbing a bucket of popcorn for this discussion.

latexr 1y ago

> You dont name new versions of software as completely different software macOS releases would like a word with you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Timeline_of_releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS#Timeline_of_releases Technically they still have numbers, but Apple hides them in marketing copy. https://www.apple.com/macos/ https://www.apple.com/macos/ Though they still have “macOS” in the name. I’m being tongue-in-cheek.

SubiculumCode 1y ago

Feel free to lay the naming convention rules out for us man.

darksaints 1y ago

[flagged]

ksec 1y ago
>Calling different opinions a low IQ take I dont read it to imply like that.

throw1235435 1y ago

> Software will get automated, and it already is, people just havent figured it out yet To be honest I think this is most AI labs (particularly the American ones) not-so-secret goal now, for a number of strong reasons. You can see it in this announcements, Anthrophic's recent Claude 3.7 announcement, OpenAI's first planned agent (SWE-Agent), etc etc. They have to justify their worth somehow and they see it as a potential path to do that. Remains to be seen how far they will get - I hope I'm wrong. The reasons however for picking this path IMO are: - Their usage statistics show coding as the main user: Anthrophic recently released their stats. Its become the main usage of these models, with other usages at best being novelty or conveniences for people in relative size. Without this market IMO the hype would of already fizzled awhile ago at best a novelty when looking at the rest of the user base size. - They "smell blood" to disrupt and fear is very effective to promote their product: This IMO is the biggest one. Disrupting software looks to be an achievable goal, but it also is a goal that has high engagement compared to other use cases. No point solving something awesome if people don't care, or only care for awhile (e.g. meme image generation). You can see the developers on this site and elsewhere in fear. Fear is the best marketing tool ever and engagement can last years. It keeps people engaged and wanting to know more; and talking about how "they are cooked" almost to the exclusion of everything else (i.e. focusing on the threat). Nothing motivates you to know a product more than not being able to provide for yourself, your family, etc to the point that most other tech topics/innovations are being drowned out by AI announcements. - Many of them are losing money and need a market to disrupt: Currently the existing use cases of a chat bot are not yet impressive enough (or haven't been till very recently) to justify the massive valuations of these companies. Its coding that is allowing them to bootstrap into other domains. - It is a domain they understand: AI dev's know models, they understand the software process. It may be a complex domain requiring constant study, but they know it back to front. This makes it a good first case for disruption where the data, and the know how is already with the teams. TL;DR: They are coming after you, because it is a big fruit that is easier to pick for them than other domains. Its also one that people will notice either out of excitement (CEO, VC's, Management, etc) or out of fear (tech workers, academics, other intellectual workers).