3 ms·

It's telling that you ask these details from a comment describing a negative experience, yet the top-most comment full of praises and hyperbole is accepted at f

by imiric 1y ago

It's telling that you ask these details from a comment describing a negative experience, yet the top-most comment full of praises and hyperbole is accepted at face value. Let's either demand these things from both sides or from neither. Just because your experience matches one side, doesn't mean that experiences different from yours should require a higher degree of scrutiny. I actually think it's more productive to just accept how people describe their experience, without demanding some extensive list of evidence to back it up. We don't do this for any other opinion, so why does it matter in this case? > Let's try and move the discussion beyond that! Sharing experiences using anecdotal evidence covers most of the discussion on forums. Maybe don't try to police it, and either engage with it, or move on.

libraryofbabel 1y ago
I should have been clearer - I'd like to see this kind of information from positive comments as well. It's just as important. If someone is having success with Claude Code while vide-coding a toy app, I don't care. If they're having success with it on a large legacy codebase, I want them to write a blog post all about what they're doing, because that's extremely useful information.
- imiric 1y ago
  I jumped the gun a bit in my comment, since you did mention you want to see this from both sides. So it was clear, and I apologize. The thing is that I often read this kind of response only to comments with negative experiences, while positive ones are accepted as fact. You can see this reinforced in the comments here as well. A comment section is not the right place to expand on these details, but I agree that blog posts should have them, regardless of the experience type.
gilfoy 1y ago
It’s telling that they didn’t specifically address it at the negative experience and you filled that in yourself
- rounce 1y ago
  It was the comment they replied to. If it was a general critique of the state of discourse around agentic tools and Claude Code in particular why not make it a top level comment?
  - libraryofbabel 1y ago
    Oh, because I wanted to illustrate that the discourse is exemplified by the pair of the GP comment (vague and positive) and the parent comment (vague and negative). Therefore I replied to the negative parent comment.
serf 1y ago
>Let's either demand these things from both sides or from neither. Just because your experience matches one side, doesn't mean that experiences different from yours should require a higher degree of scrutiny. Sort of. The people that are happy with it and praising the avenues offered by LLM/AI solutions are creating codebases that fulfill their requirements, whatever those might be. The people that seem to be unhappy with it tend to have the universal complaints of either "it produces garbage" , or "I'm slower with it.". Maybe i'm showing my age here, but I remember these same exact discussions between people that either praised or disparaged search engines. The alternative being an internet Yellowpages (which was a thing for many years.) The ones that praised it tended to be people who were taught or otherwise figured out how to use metadata tags like date:/onsite: , whereas the ones that disparaged it tended to be the folks who would search for things like "who won the game" and then proceed to click every scam/porno link on this green Earth and then blame Google/gdg/lycos/whatever when they were exposed to whatever they clicked. in other words : proof is kind of in the pudding. I wouldn't care about the compiler logs from a user that ignored all syntax and grammar rules of a language after picking it up last week, either -- but it's useful for successful devs to share their experiences both good and bad. I care more about the opinions of those that know the rules of the game -- let the actual teams behind these software deal with the user testing and feedback from people that don't want to learn conventions.
- oblio 1y ago
  > The ones that praised it tended to be people who were taught or otherwise figured out how to use metadata tags like date:/onsite: , whereas the ones that disparaged it tended to be the folks who would search for things like "who won the game" and then proceed to click every scam/porno link on this green Earth and then blame Google/gdg/lycos/whatever when they were exposed to whatever they clicked. One big warning here: search engines only became really useful when you could search for "who won the game" and the search engine actually returned the correct thing as the top result. We're more than a quarter of a century later and probably 99.99% of users don't know about Google's advanced search operators. This should be a major warning for LLMs. People are people and will do people things.
- imiric 1y ago
leptons 1y ago
>But I think we've reached the point where such posts (both positive and negative) are _completely useless_, unless they're accompanied with a careful summary of at least: They did mention "(both positive and negative)", and I didn't take their comment to be one-sided towards the AI-negative comments only.
muzani 1y ago
They're tools. To a fluent tool user, the negative anecdotes sound like, "I prefer typewriters over word processors because it's easier to correct mistakes." "I don't own any forks because knives are just better at cutting bread." "Bidets make my pants wet, so I'll keep to toilet paper." I think there's an urge to fix misinformation. Whereas if someone loves Excel and thinks Excel is better than Java at making apps, I have no urge to correct that. Maybe they know something about Excel that I don't.

by imiric 1y ago

libraryofbabel 1y ago

I should have been clearer - I'd like to see this kind of information from positive comments as well. It's just as important. If someone is having success with Claude Code while vide-coding a toy app, I don't care. If they're having success with it on a large legacy codebase, I want them to write a blog post all about what they're doing, because that's extremely useful information.

imiric 1y ago
I jumped the gun a bit in my comment, since you did mention you want to see this from both sides. So it was clear, and I apologize. The thing is that I often read this kind of response only to comments with negative experiences, while positive ones are accepted as fact. You can see this reinforced in the comments here as well. A comment section is not the right place to expand on these details, but I agree that blog posts should have them, regardless of the experience type.

gilfoy 1y ago

It’s telling that they didn’t specifically address it at the negative experience and you filled that in yourself

rounce 1y ago
It was the comment they replied to. If it was a general critique of the state of discourse around agentic tools and Claude Code in particular why not make it a top level comment?
- libraryofbabel 1y ago
  Oh, because I wanted to illustrate that the discourse is exemplified by the pair of the GP comment (vague and positive) and the parent comment (vague and negative). Therefore I replied to the negative parent comment.

serf 1y ago

>Let's either demand these things from both sides or from neither. Just because your experience matches one side, doesn't mean that experiences different from yours should require a higher degree of scrutiny. Sort of. The people that are happy with it and praising the avenues offered by LLM/AI solutions are creating codebases that fulfill their requirements, whatever those might be. The people that seem to be unhappy with it tend to have the universal complaints of either "it produces garbage" , or "I'm slower with it.". Maybe i'm showing my age here, but I remember these same exact discussions between people that either praised or disparaged search engines. The alternative being an internet Yellowpages (which was a thing for many years.) The ones that praised it tended to be people who were taught or otherwise figured out how to use metadata tags like date:/onsite: , whereas the ones that disparaged it tended to be the folks who would search for things like "who won the game" and then proceed to click every scam/porno link on this green Earth and then blame Google/gdg/lycos/whatever when they were exposed to whatever they clicked. in other words : proof is kind of in the pudding. I wouldn't care about the compiler logs from a user that ignored all syntax and grammar rules of a language after picking it up last week, either -- but it's useful for successful devs to share their experiences both good and bad. I care more about the opinions of those that know the rules of the game -- let the actual teams behind these software deal with the user testing and feedback from people that don't want to learn conventions.

oblio 1y ago
> The ones that praised it tended to be people who were taught or otherwise figured out how to use metadata tags like date:/onsite: , whereas the ones that disparaged it tended to be the folks who would search for things like "who won the game" and then proceed to click every scam/porno link on this green Earth and then blame Google/gdg/lycos/whatever when they were exposed to whatever they clicked. One big warning here: search engines only became really useful when you could search for "who won the game" and the search engine actually returned the correct thing as the top result. We're more than a quarter of a century later and probably 99.99% of users don't know about Google's advanced search operators. This should be a major warning for LLMs. People are people and will do people things.
imiric 1y ago

leptons 1y ago

>But I think we've reached the point where such posts (both positive and negative) are _completely useless_, unless they're accompanied with a careful summary of at least: They did mention "(both positive and negative)", and I didn't take their comment to be one-sided towards the AI-negative comments only.

muzani 1y ago

They're tools. To a fluent tool user, the negative anecdotes sound like, "I prefer typewriters over word processors because it's easier to correct mistakes." "I don't own any forks because knives are just better at cutting bread." "Bidets make my pants wet, so I'll keep to toilet paper." I think there's an urge to fix misinformation. Whereas if someone loves Excel and thinks Excel is better than Java at making apps, I have no urge to correct that. Maybe they know something about Excel that I don't.