4 ms·

This. Everytime ive tried to do anything of any complexity these things blow up, and i spend almost as much time toying with the thing as it would have taken t

This. Everytime ive tried to do anything of any complexity these things blow up, and i spend almost as much time toying with the thing as it would have taken to read docs and implement from scratch.

Roark66 1y ago
Try breaking it up into smaller pieces. Give it your existing code and tell it to do it in same style. Or give it examples that do the similar things you wrote. Also don't expect chatgpt to ever be as good as Claude for example . Oh and copilot is a joke for anything remotely serious.
- lumost 1y ago
  The latest copilot pricing for Claude sonnet 4 is fantastic. I get 1500 agent sessions for $40/month
- ofjcihen 1y ago
  I wrote this elsewhere but it works here too: “You’re just not doing it right. Have you tried upgrading to Claude 9000 edition/writing a novels worth of guardrails/using this obscure ‘AI FIRST’ IDE/creating a Goldberg machine of agents to check the code?”
- TechDebtDevin 1y ago
  I fall back to people saying this are being dishonest, or not dealing with anything large. There are some problems that you can't just "make smaller" Secondly, I write VERY strongly typed code, commented && documented well. I build lots of "micro-pkgs" in larger monorepos. My functions are pretty modular, have tests and are <100-150 lines. No matter how much I try all the techniques, and my baseline fits well into LLM workflows, it doesn't take away from the fact that It cannot one shot on anything over 1-2k lines of code. Sure, we can go back and forth with the linter until it pumps out something that will compile. This will take a while, in which I could have used something like auto-complete / co-pilot to just write the boilerplate, and fill it in myself in a shorter amount of time than it takes for the agent to reason about a large context. Then if it does eventually get something "complex" to compile (after spending a ton of your credits/money) Often times, it will have taken a shortcut to do so and doesn't actually do what you wanted it to. Now I can refactor this into something usable and sometimes that is faster than doing it myself. But 8/10 times I waste 2 hours paying money for an LLM to gaslight me, throw out all the code and just write it myself in 1.5 hours. I can break down a 1-2k line task into smaller prompts tasks too. but sorry I didn't learn to program to become a project manager for a "Artifically Intelligent" machine
notTooFarGone 1y ago
I highly suspect the people who boast with productivity gains that they don't count their time setting the whole damn thing up as it's just "playing around".
mattgreenrocks 1y ago
If people put the same effort into actually building their skills as they do in forcing AIs to write mediocre code through all sorts of processes they might actually enjoy the process of building software more. But what do I know? Shiny thing must be better because it’s new!

This. Everytime ive tried to do anything of any complexity these things blow up, and i spend almost as much time toying with the thing as it would have taken to read docs and implement from scratch.

Roark66 1y ago

Try breaking it up into smaller pieces. Give it your existing code and tell it to do it in same style. Or give it examples that do the similar things you wrote. Also don't expect chatgpt to ever be as good as Claude for example . Oh and copilot is a joke for anything remotely serious.

lumost 1y ago
The latest copilot pricing for Claude sonnet 4 is fantastic. I get 1500 agent sessions for $40/month
ofjcihen 1y ago
I wrote this elsewhere but it works here too: “You’re just not doing it right. Have you tried upgrading to Claude 9000 edition/writing a novels worth of guardrails/using this obscure ‘AI FIRST’ IDE/creating a Goldberg machine of agents to check the code?”
TechDebtDevin 1y ago
I fall back to people saying this are being dishonest, or not dealing with anything large. There are some problems that you can't just "make smaller" Secondly, I write VERY strongly typed code, commented && documented well. I build lots of "micro-pkgs" in larger monorepos. My functions are pretty modular, have tests and are <100-150 lines. No matter how much I try all the techniques, and my baseline fits well into LLM workflows, it doesn't take away from the fact that It cannot one shot on anything over 1-2k lines of code. Sure, we can go back and forth with the linter until it pumps out something that will compile. This will take a while, in which I could have used something like auto-complete / co-pilot to just write the boilerplate, and fill it in myself in a shorter amount of time than it takes for the agent to reason about a large context. Then if it does eventually get something "complex" to compile (after spending a ton of your credits/money) Often times, it will have taken a shortcut to do so and doesn't actually do what you wanted it to. Now I can refactor this into something usable and sometimes that is faster than doing it myself. But 8/10 times I waste 2 hours paying money for an LLM to gaslight me, throw out all the code and just write it myself in 1.5 hours. I can break down a 1-2k line task into smaller prompts tasks too. but sorry I didn't learn to program to become a project manager for a "Artifically Intelligent" machine

notTooFarGone 1y ago

I highly suspect the people who boast with productivity gains that they don't count their time setting the whole damn thing up as it's just "playing around".

mattgreenrocks 1y ago

If people put the same effort into actually building their skills as they do in forcing AIs to write mediocre code through all sorts of processes they might actually enjoy the process of building software more. But what do I know? Shiny thing must be better because it’s new!