5 ms·

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Got

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Gotta start doing some thinking.

dude250711 1y ago
He did not pass the vibe check.
bGl2YW5j 1y ago
Came to comment on the same quote. I'm surprised, but know I shouldn't be, that we're at this point already.
- mattigames 1y ago
  I would be a little disappointed if that wasn't the case, after all we have been there quite a while in regards to the art models.
- mrits 1y ago
  First one was free
mrits 1y ago
I honestly feel sorry for these vibe coders. I'm loving AI in a similar way that I loved google or IDE magic. This seems like a far worst version of those developers that tried to build an entire app with Eclipse or Visual Studio GUI drag and drop from the late 90s
- geoduck14 1y ago
  Why isn't anyone talking about the bevvy of drag-and-drop no colder solutions that have already been in the market? Surely the LLMs are competing with those tools, right?
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    People trash LLM code as if most consumer software isn't buggy piles of half assed code.
    - eppsilon 1y ago
      all software if we're being honest :)
- IAmGraydon 1y ago
  Thats a really good comparison. Dreamweaver would be another one. You just don’t own the tool now, so it puts you at even more risk.
- nikisweeting 1y ago
  Hundreds of billions of dollars have changed hands through shitty drag-and-drop UIs, wordpress ecommerce plugins, and dreamweaver sites, lets not forget the code is there to serve a business purpose at the end of the day. Code quality is an implementation detail that may matter less over time as rewrites get easier. I love me some beatiful hand-written clean code, but clean code is not the true goal.
  - ImaCake 1y ago
    > clean code is not the true goal Its not, but it does matter. LLMs, being next word guessers, perform differently with different inputs. Its not hard to imagine a feedback loop of bad code generating worse code and good code generating more good code. My ability to get good responses from LLMs has been tied to me writing better code, docstrings, and using autoformatters.
    - nikisweeting 1y ago
      I don't think that feedback loop is really a loop because code that doesn't actually do its job doesn't grow in popularity for long. We already have a great source of selection pressure to take care of shitty products that don't function: users and their $.
      - ImaCake 1y ago
        There is nothing about LLMs that make them bias towards "better" code. LLMs are every bit as good at making low effort reddit posts and writing essays for Harper's Magazine. In fact, there's a lot more shit reddit posts (and horrible student assignment github repos) than there are Harper's Magazine articles. The only thing standing between your LLM and bad code is the quality of the prompt (including context and the hiddem OEM prompt).
  - mrits 1y ago
    I don't consider drag-and-drop UIs anywhere close to wordpress plugins. I'm not talking about writing bad code, I'm talking about being able to understand what you are creating.
- stavros 1y ago
  I really don't like how religious the debate about AI has gotten here. "I feel sorry for these vibe coders" is something you tell yourself to feel superior to people who use AI. Don't feel sorry for me, I've used vibe coding to create many things, and I still know how to program, so I'll live if it goes away.
  - Wubdidu 1y ago
    Same, I really like the solutions one can build with LLMs and have a lot of fun working with them to improve use-cases where it actually makes sense. Its the first time since years I really enjoy coding on side-projects and take great care to give clear instructions and review and understand what LLMs build for me, except some completely irrelevant/one-shot things I entirely "vibe code". Its gotten so bad I'm actively trying to avoid talking about this in circles like Hacker News because people get so heavily and aggressively discredited and ridiculed as if they have no idea what they are doing or are a shill for big AI companies. I know what I'm doing and actively try to help friends and co-workers use LLMs in a sustainable way, understanding their limitations and the dangers of letting them loose without staying in the loop. Its sad that I can't talk about this without fear of being attacked, especially in communities like Hacker News that I previously valued as being very professional and open, compared to other modern social media.
m4rtink 1y ago
Who would have though including a hard depedency on third part service with unclear long term availability would be a problem! Paid compilers and remotely acessible mainframes all over again - people apparently never learn.
- manquer 1y ago
  > Paid compilers. I don't think this one is a good comparison. Once you had the binary, the compiler worked forever[1] The issue with them was around long term support for bugs and upgrade path as the language evolved. --- [1] as long you had a machine capable of running/emulating the instruction set for the binary.
  - o11c 1y ago
    Hm, I am assuming that paid compilers were largely gone before the whole "must have this dongle attached to computer" industry? Because for software that uses those, "I paid for it" absolutely does not guarantee "I can still run it". The only reason it's not more of a problem is the planned obsolescence that means forced to upgrade sooner or later (but, unlike purely subscription-based services, you have some control over how frequently you pay).
    - codebje 1y ago
      Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.
      - delta_p_delta_x 1y ago
        My understanding is that much of the established embedded world has moved to any one flavour of GCC or (more commonly) Clang, just because maintaining a proprietary optimising compiler is too much effort than just modifying (and eventually contributing to) Clang.
skort 1y ago
Right, but these companies are selling their products on the basis that you can offload a good amount of the thinking. And it seems a good deal of investment in AI is also based on this premise. I don't disagree with you, but it's sorta fucked that so much money has been pumped into this and that markets seem to still be okay with it all.
- AlexandrB 1y ago
  They're not selling them, they're still giving them away. Once the VC money runs out we'll see what the actual cost of this stuff is.
  - tecleandor 1y ago
    Yeah, they are _saying_ that they're selling you a service but there will be surprises...
  - spongebobstoes 1y ago
    most inference runs at 40%+ margin
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      Exactly. The enormous margin is why companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are known for being so immensely profitable. Just money printing machines compared to the amount of cash they burn
    - ehnto 1y ago
      Is that for per token costs or in these bundled subscriptions companies are selling? For example, when playing around with claude code using a per token paid API key, it was going to cost ~$50aud a day with pretty general usage. But their subscription plan is less than that per month. Them lowering their limits suggests that this wasn't proving profitable at the current limits.
    - darylteo 1y ago
      Is this like saying a gym runs at 40%+ margin because 80% of users don't really use it heavily or forget they even had a subscription? Would be interested to see the breakdown of that number.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
epolanski 1y ago
Hmmm, I am 99% sure the users are not vibe coders who can't code, those are on tools like lovable, not messing with terminal tools.
gdudeman 1y ago
More than some thinking. They’ll probably need to think hardest or even ultrathink to keep the project moving forward.
chewz 1y ago
People who complain that Claude Code Max $200 isn't enough are first to let go in my opinion. They have have either shitty codebase or can't narrow down the scope. Or both. Not the kind of folks you want on your team.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  That's a nonsense take. How fast you burn through usage limits depends on your use patterns, and if there's one thing that's true about LLMs, is that you can practically always improve your results by spending more tokens. Pay-per-use API pricing just makes you hit diminishing returns quickly. With Claude Code subscription, it's different. The whole value proposition of a Max subscription is that it lets you stop worrying about tokens (Claude Code literally tells you so if you type `/cost` while authenticated with a subscription). So I'd turn around and say, people who don't regularly hit usage limits aren't using Claude Code properly - they're not utilizing it in full. -- Myself, I'm only using Claude Code for little R&D and some side projects, but I upgraded from Max x5 to Max x20 on the second day, as it's trivial to hit the Max x5 limit in a regular, single-instance chat. And that's without any smarts, just a more streamlined flavor of good ol' basic chat experience. But then I look around, and see people experiment with more complex approaches. They run 4+ instances in parallel to work on more things at a time. They run multiple instances in parallel to get multiple solutions to the same task, and then mix them into a final one - possibly with help of yet another instance. They have the agent extensively research a thing before doing it, and then extensively validate it afterwards. And so on. Any single one of such tricks/strategies is going to make hitting limits on Max x20 a regular occurrence again.
latexr 1y ago
> Gotta start doing some thinking. The fact they declared their own project as “impossible to advance” given the situation reveals they are unwilling to go the thinking route right now.

> One user, who asked not to be identified, said it has been impossible to advance his project since the usage limits came into effect. Vibe limit reached. Gotta start doing some thinking.

dude250711 1y ago

He did not pass the vibe check.

bGl2YW5j 1y ago

Came to comment on the same quote. I'm surprised, but know I shouldn't be, that we're at this point already.

mattigames 1y ago
I would be a little disappointed if that wasn't the case, after all we have been there quite a while in regards to the art models.
mrits 1y ago
First one was free

mrits 1y ago

I honestly feel sorry for these vibe coders. I'm loving AI in a similar way that I loved google or IDE magic. This seems like a far worst version of those developers that tried to build an entire app with Eclipse or Visual Studio GUI drag and drop from the late 90s

geoduck14 1y ago
Why isn't anyone talking about the bevvy of drag-and-drop no colder solutions that have already been in the market? Surely the LLMs are competing with those tools, right?
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  People trash LLM code as if most consumer software isn't buggy piles of half assed code.
  - eppsilon 1y ago
    all software if we're being honest :)
IAmGraydon 1y ago
Thats a really good comparison. Dreamweaver would be another one. You just don’t own the tool now, so it puts you at even more risk.
nikisweeting 1y ago
Hundreds of billions of dollars have changed hands through shitty drag-and-drop UIs, wordpress ecommerce plugins, and dreamweaver sites, lets not forget the code is there to serve a business purpose at the end of the day. Code quality is an implementation detail that may matter less over time as rewrites get easier. I love me some beatiful hand-written clean code, but clean code is not the true goal.
- ImaCake 1y ago
  > clean code is not the true goal Its not, but it does matter. LLMs, being next word guessers, perform differently with different inputs. Its not hard to imagine a feedback loop of bad code generating worse code and good code generating more good code. My ability to get good responses from LLMs has been tied to me writing better code, docstrings, and using autoformatters.
  - nikisweeting 1y ago
    I don't think that feedback loop is really a loop because code that doesn't actually do its job doesn't grow in popularity for long. We already have a great source of selection pressure to take care of shitty products that don't function: users and their $.
    - ImaCake 1y ago
      There is nothing about LLMs that make them bias towards "better" code. LLMs are every bit as good at making low effort reddit posts and writing essays for Harper's Magazine. In fact, there's a lot more shit reddit posts (and horrible student assignment github repos) than there are Harper's Magazine articles. The only thing standing between your LLM and bad code is the quality of the prompt (including context and the hiddem OEM prompt).
- mrits 1y ago
  I don't consider drag-and-drop UIs anywhere close to wordpress plugins. I'm not talking about writing bad code, I'm talking about being able to understand what you are creating.
stavros 1y ago
I really don't like how religious the debate about AI has gotten here. "I feel sorry for these vibe coders" is something you tell yourself to feel superior to people who use AI. Don't feel sorry for me, I've used vibe coding to create many things, and I still know how to program, so I'll live if it goes away.
- Wubdidu 1y ago
  Same, I really like the solutions one can build with LLMs and have a lot of fun working with them to improve use-cases where it actually makes sense. Its the first time since years I really enjoy coding on side-projects and take great care to give clear instructions and review and understand what LLMs build for me, except some completely irrelevant/one-shot things I entirely "vibe code". Its gotten so bad I'm actively trying to avoid talking about this in circles like Hacker News because people get so heavily and aggressively discredited and ridiculed as if they have no idea what they are doing or are a shill for big AI companies. I know what I'm doing and actively try to help friends and co-workers use LLMs in a sustainable way, understanding their limitations and the dangers of letting them loose without staying in the loop. Its sad that I can't talk about this without fear of being attacked, especially in communities like Hacker News that I previously valued as being very professional and open, compared to other modern social media.

m4rtink 1y ago

Who would have though including a hard depedency on third part service with unclear long term availability would be a problem! Paid compilers and remotely acessible mainframes all over again - people apparently never learn.

manquer 1y ago
> Paid compilers. I don't think this one is a good comparison. Once you had the binary, the compiler worked forever[1] The issue with them was around long term support for bugs and upgrade path as the language evolved. --- [1] as long you had a machine capable of running/emulating the instruction set for the binary.
- o11c 1y ago
  Hm, I am assuming that paid compilers were largely gone before the whole "must have this dongle attached to computer" industry? Because for software that uses those, "I paid for it" absolutely does not guarantee "I can still run it". The only reason it's not more of a problem is the planned obsolescence that means forced to upgrade sooner or later (but, unlike purely subscription-based services, you have some control over how frequently you pay).
  - codebje 1y ago
    Sadly, paid compilers still exist, and paid compilers requiring a licensing dongle still exist. The embedded development world is filled with staggering amounts of user hostility.
    - delta_p_delta_x 1y ago
      My understanding is that much of the established embedded world has moved to any one flavour of GCC or (more commonly) Clang, just because maintaining a proprietary optimising compiler is too much effort than just modifying (and eventually contributing to) Clang.

skort 1y ago

Right, but these companies are selling their products on the basis that you can offload a good amount of the thinking. And it seems a good deal of investment in AI is also based on this premise. I don't disagree with you, but it's sorta fucked that so much money has been pumped into this and that markets seem to still be okay with it all.

AlexandrB 1y ago
They're not selling them, they're still giving them away. Once the VC money runs out we'll see what the actual cost of this stuff is.
- tecleandor 1y ago
  Yeah, they are _saying_ that they're selling you a service but there will be surprises...
- spongebobstoes 1y ago
  most inference runs at 40%+ margin
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    Exactly. The enormous margin is why companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are known for being so immensely profitable. Just money printing machines compared to the amount of cash they burn
  - ehnto 1y ago
    Is that for per token costs or in these bundled subscriptions companies are selling? For example, when playing around with claude code using a per token paid API key, it was going to cost ~$50aud a day with pretty general usage. But their subscription plan is less than that per month. Them lowering their limits suggests that this wasn't proving profitable at the current limits.
  - darylteo 1y ago
    Is this like saying a gym runs at 40%+ margin because 80% of users don't really use it heavily or forget they even had a subscription? Would be interested to see the breakdown of that number.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

epolanski 1y ago

Hmmm, I am 99% sure the users are not vibe coders who can't code, those are on tools like lovable, not messing with terminal tools.

gdudeman 1y ago

More than some thinking. They’ll probably need to think hardest or even ultrathink to keep the project moving forward.

chewz 1y ago

People who complain that Claude Code Max $200 isn't enough are first to let go in my opinion. They have have either shitty codebase or can't narrow down the scope. Or both. Not the kind of folks you want on your team.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
That's a nonsense take. How fast you burn through usage limits depends on your use patterns, and if there's one thing that's true about LLMs, is that you can practically always improve your results by spending more tokens. Pay-per-use API pricing just makes you hit diminishing returns quickly. With Claude Code subscription, it's different. The whole value proposition of a Max subscription is that it lets you stop worrying about tokens (Claude Code literally tells you so if you type `/cost` while authenticated with a subscription). So I'd turn around and say, people who don't regularly hit usage limits aren't using Claude Code properly - they're not utilizing it in full. -- Myself, I'm only using Claude Code for little R&D and some side projects, but I upgraded from Max x5 to Max x20 on the second day, as it's trivial to hit the Max x5 limit in a regular, single-instance chat. And that's without any smarts, just a more streamlined flavor of good ol' basic chat experience. But then I look around, and see people experiment with more complex approaches. They run 4+ instances in parallel to work on more things at a time. They run multiple instances in parallel to get multiple solutions to the same task, and then mix them into a final one - possibly with help of yet another instance. They have the agent extensively research a thing before doing it, and then extensively validate it afterwards. And so on. Any single one of such tricks/strategies is going to make hitting limits on Max x20 a regular occurrence again.

latexr 1y ago

> Gotta start doing some thinking. The fact they declared their own project as “impossible to advance” given the situation reveals they are unwilling to go the thinking route right now.