4 ms·

"Deal with" and "autonomously" are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Cursor already does a pretty good job indexing all the files in a code base in a way that

"Deal with" and "autonomously" are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Cursor already does a pretty good job indexing all the files in a code base in a way that lets it ask questions and get answers pretty quickly. It's just a matter of where you set the goalposts.

ameliaquining 1y ago
True, there'd be a need to operationalize these things a bit more than is done in the post to have a good advance prediction.
jononor 1y ago
"LLM" as well, because coding agents are already more than just an LLM. There is very useful context management around it, and tool calling, and ability to run tests/programs, etc. Though they are LLM-based systems, they are not LLMs.
- smnrchrds 1y ago
  Indeed. If the LLM calls a chess engine tool behind the scenes, it would be able to play excellent chess as well.
  - cavisne 1y ago
    The author would still be wrong in the tool-calling scenario. There is already perfect (or at least superhuman) chess engines. There is no perfect "coding engine". LLM's + tools being able to reliably work on large codebases would be a new thing.
    - yosefk 1y ago
      Correct - as long as the tools the LLM uses are non-ML-based algorithms existing today, and it operates on a large code base with no programmers in the loop, I would be wrong. If the LLM uses a chess engine, then it does nothing on top of the engine; similarly if an LLM will use another system adding no value on top, I would not be wrong. If the LLM uses something based on a novel ML approach, I would not be wrong - it would be my "ML breakthrough" scenario. If the LLM uses classical algorithms or an ML algo known today and adds value on top of them and operates autonomously on a large code base - no programmer needed on the team - then I am wrong
- interstice 1y ago
  This rapidly gets philosophical. If I use tools am I not handling the codebase? Are we classing LLM as tool or user in this scenario?
yosefk 1y ago
Cursor fails miserably for me even just trying to replace function calls with method calls consistently, like I said in the post. This I would hope is fixable. By dealing autonomously I mean "you don't need a programmer - a PM talks to an LLM and that's how the code base is maintained, and this happens a lot (rather than on one or two famous cases where it's pretty well known how they are special and different from most work)" By "large" I mean 300K lines (strong prediction), or 10 times the context window (weaker prediction) I don't shy away from looking stupid in the future, you've got to give me this much
- adastra22 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure you can do that right now in Claude Code with the right subagent definitions. (For what it's worth, I respect and greatly appreciate your willingness to put out a prediction based on real evidence and your own reasoning. But I think you must be lacking experience with the latest tools & best practices.)
  - yosefk 1y ago
    If you're right, there will soon be a flood of software teams with no programmers on them - either across all domains, or in some domains where this works well. We shall see. Indeed I have no experience with Claude Code, but I use Claude via chat, and it fails all the time on things not remotely as hard as orientation in a large code base. Claude Code is the same thing with the ability to run tools. Of course tools help to ground its iterations in reality, but I don't think it's a panacea absent a consistent ability to model the reality you observe thru your use of tools. Let's see...
    - adastra22 1y ago
      > Indeed I have no experience with Claude Code, but I use Claude via chat... These are not even remotely similar, despite the name. Things are moving very fast, and the sort of chat-based interface that you describe in your article is already obsolete. Claude is the LLM model. Claude Code is a combination of internal tools for the agent to track its goals, current state, priorities, etc., and a looped mechanism for keeping it on track, focused, and debugging its own actions. With the proper subagents it can keep its context from being poisoned from false starts, and its built-in todo system keeps it on task. Really, try it out and see for yourself. It doesn't work magic out of the box, and absolutely needs some hand-holding to get it to work well, but that's only because it is so new. The next generation of tooling will have these subagent definitions auto selected and included in context so you can hit the ground running. We are already starting to see a flood of software coming out with very few active coders on the team, as you can see on the HN front page. I say "very few active coders" not "no programmers" because using Claude Code effectively still requires domain expertise as we work out the bugs in agent orchestration. But once that is done, there aren't any obvious remaining stumbling blocks to a PM running a no-coder, all-AI product team.

ameliaquining 1y ago

True, there'd be a need to operationalize these things a bit more than is done in the post to have a good advance prediction.

jononor 1y ago

"LLM" as well, because coding agents are already more than just an LLM. There is very useful context management around it, and tool calling, and ability to run tests/programs, etc. Though they are LLM-based systems, they are not LLMs.

smnrchrds 1y ago
Indeed. If the LLM calls a chess engine tool behind the scenes, it would be able to play excellent chess as well.
- cavisne 1y ago
  The author would still be wrong in the tool-calling scenario. There is already perfect (or at least superhuman) chess engines. There is no perfect "coding engine". LLM's + tools being able to reliably work on large codebases would be a new thing.
  - yosefk 1y ago
    Correct - as long as the tools the LLM uses are non-ML-based algorithms existing today, and it operates on a large code base with no programmers in the loop, I would be wrong. If the LLM uses a chess engine, then it does nothing on top of the engine; similarly if an LLM will use another system adding no value on top, I would not be wrong. If the LLM uses something based on a novel ML approach, I would not be wrong - it would be my "ML breakthrough" scenario. If the LLM uses classical algorithms or an ML algo known today and adds value on top of them and operates autonomously on a large code base - no programmer needed on the team - then I am wrong
interstice 1y ago
This rapidly gets philosophical. If I use tools am I not handling the codebase? Are we classing LLM as tool or user in this scenario?

yosefk 1y ago

Cursor fails miserably for me even just trying to replace function calls with method calls consistently, like I said in the post. This I would hope is fixable. By dealing autonomously I mean "you don't need a programmer - a PM talks to an LLM and that's how the code base is maintained, and this happens a lot (rather than on one or two famous cases where it's pretty well known how they are special and different from most work)" By "large" I mean 300K lines (strong prediction), or 10 times the context window (weaker prediction) I don't shy away from looking stupid in the future, you've got to give me this much

adastra22 1y ago
I'm pretty sure you can do that right now in Claude Code with the right subagent definitions. (For what it's worth, I respect and greatly appreciate your willingness to put out a prediction based on real evidence and your own reasoning. But I think you must be lacking experience with the latest tools & best practices.)
- yosefk 1y ago
  If you're right, there will soon be a flood of software teams with no programmers on them - either across all domains, or in some domains where this works well. We shall see. Indeed I have no experience with Claude Code, but I use Claude via chat, and it fails all the time on things not remotely as hard as orientation in a large code base. Claude Code is the same thing with the ability to run tools. Of course tools help to ground its iterations in reality, but I don't think it's a panacea absent a consistent ability to model the reality you observe thru your use of tools. Let's see...
  - adastra22 1y ago
    > Indeed I have no experience with Claude Code, but I use Claude via chat... These are not even remotely similar, despite the name. Things are moving very fast, and the sort of chat-based interface that you describe in your article is already obsolete. Claude is the LLM model. Claude Code is a combination of internal tools for the agent to track its goals, current state, priorities, etc., and a looped mechanism for keeping it on track, focused, and debugging its own actions. With the proper subagents it can keep its context from being poisoned from false starts, and its built-in todo system keeps it on task. Really, try it out and see for yourself. It doesn't work magic out of the box, and absolutely needs some hand-holding to get it to work well, but that's only because it is so new. The next generation of tooling will have these subagent definitions auto selected and included in context so you can hit the ground running. We are already starting to see a flood of software coming out with very few active coders on the team, as you can see on the HN front page. I say "very few active coders" not "no programmers" because using Claude Code effectively still requires domain expertise as we work out the bugs in agent orchestration. But once that is done, there aren't any obvious remaining stumbling blocks to a PM running a no-coder, all-AI product team.