5 ms·

A year ago I could get o1-mini to write tests some of the time that I would then need to fix. Now I can get Opus 4.5 to do fairly complicated refactors with no

A year ago I could get o1-mini to write tests some of the time that I would then need to fix. Now I can get Opus 4.5 to do fairly complicated refactors with no mistakes. These tools are seriously starting to become actually useful, and I’m sorry but people aren’t lying when they say things have changed a lot over the last year.

TGower 10mo ago
It might even be true this time, but there is no real mystery why many aren't inclined to invest more time figuring it out for themselves every few months. No need for the author of the original article to reach for "they are protecting their fragile egos" style of explanation.
- Tripping5292 10mo ago
  The productivity improvements speak for themselves. Over time, those who can use ai well and those who cannot will be rewarded or penalized by the free market accordingly.
  - emp17344 10mo ago
    If there’s evidence of productivity improvements through AI use, please provide more information. From what I’ve seen, the actual data shows that AI use slows developers down.
    - Tripping5292 10mo ago
      The sheer number of projects I've completed that I truly would never have been able to even make a dent in is evidence enough for me. I don't think research will convince you. You need to either watch someone do it, or experiment with it yourself. Get your hands dirty on an audacious project with Claude code.
      - emp17344 10mo ago
        Research is the only thing that will convince me. That’s the way it should be.
        abishek89 10mo ago
        https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI a 6-12% increase in pull requests per developer per month.
      - rurp 10mo ago
        It sounds like you're building a lot of prototypes or small projects, which yes LLMs can be amazingly helpful at. But that is very much not what many/most professional engineers spend their time on, and generalizing from that former case often doesn't hold up in my experience.
        mazswojejzony 10mo ago
        We use both Claude and Codex on a fairly large ~10-years old Java project (~1900 Java files, 180K lines of code). Both tools are able to implement changes across several files, refactor the code, add unit tests for the modified areas. Sometime the result is not great, sometimes it requires manual updates, sometimes it just goes into a wrong direction and we just discard the proposal. The good thing is you can initiate such a large change, go get a coffee, and when you're back you can take a look at the changes. Anyway, overall those tools are pretty useful already.
        Tripping5292 10mo ago
        It sounds like you're assuming I'm not a professional engineer and I only work on prototypes.
        Izkata 10mo ago
        They're basing it on what you described in your previous comment. I got the same impression.
  - jennyholzer2 10mo ago
    0.1x
    - Tripping5292 10mo ago
      If only you put half as much effort into learning ai as you do trolling people who are getting gains from it...
      - jennyholzer2 10mo ago
        [flagged]
  - Gigachad 10mo ago
    What does “can use” mean though. You just ask it to do things in basic English. Everyone can do that with no training.
  - mmcnl 10mo ago
    Do you have evidence?
    - abishek89 10mo ago
      https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI
  - tjr 10mo ago
    That's what it really all comes down to, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you're using AI or not, just like it never mattered if you were using C or Java or Lisp, or using Emacs or Visual Studio, or using a debugger or printf's, or using Git or SVN or Rational ClearCase. What really matters is in the end is, what you bring to market, and what your audience thinks of your product. So use all the AI you want. Or don't use it. Or use it half the time. Or use it for the hard stuff, but not the easy stuff. Or use it for the easy stuff, but not the hard stuff. Whatever! You can succeed in the market with AI-generated product; you can fail in the market with AI-generated product. You can succeed in the market with human-generated product; you can fail in the market with human-generated product.

TGower 10mo ago

It might even be true this time, but there is no real mystery why many aren't inclined to invest more time figuring it out for themselves every few months. No need for the author of the original article to reach for "they are protecting their fragile egos" style of explanation.

Tripping5292 10mo ago
The productivity improvements speak for themselves. Over time, those who can use ai well and those who cannot will be rewarded or penalized by the free market accordingly.
- emp17344 10mo ago
  If there’s evidence of productivity improvements through AI use, please provide more information. From what I’ve seen, the actual data shows that AI use slows developers down.
  - Tripping5292 10mo ago
    The sheer number of projects I've completed that I truly would never have been able to even make a dent in is evidence enough for me. I don't think research will convince you. You need to either watch someone do it, or experiment with it yourself. Get your hands dirty on an audacious project with Claude code.
    - emp17344 10mo ago
      Research is the only thing that will convince me. That’s the way it should be.
      - abishek89 10mo ago
        https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI a 6-12% increase in pull requests per developer per month.
    - rurp 10mo ago
      It sounds like you're building a lot of prototypes or small projects, which yes LLMs can be amazingly helpful at. But that is very much not what many/most professional engineers spend their time on, and generalizing from that former case often doesn't hold up in my experience.
      - mazswojejzony 10mo ago
        We use both Claude and Codex on a fairly large ~10-years old Java project (~1900 Java files, 180K lines of code). Both tools are able to implement changes across several files, refactor the code, add unit tests for the modified areas. Sometime the result is not great, sometimes it requires manual updates, sometimes it just goes into a wrong direction and we just discard the proposal. The good thing is you can initiate such a large change, go get a coffee, and when you're back you can take a look at the changes. Anyway, overall those tools are pretty useful already.
      - Tripping5292 10mo ago
        It sounds like you're assuming I'm not a professional engineer and I only work on prototypes.
        Izkata 10mo ago
        They're basing it on what you described in your previous comment. I got the same impression.
- jennyholzer2 10mo ago
  0.1x
  - Tripping5292 10mo ago
    If only you put half as much effort into learning ai as you do trolling people who are getting gains from it...
    - jennyholzer2 10mo ago
      [flagged]
- Gigachad 10mo ago
  What does “can use” mean though. You just ask it to do things in basic English. Everyone can do that with no training.
- mmcnl 10mo ago
  Do you have evidence?
  - abishek89 10mo ago
    https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI https://youtu.be/1OzxYK2-qsI
- tjr 10mo ago
  That's what it really all comes down to, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you're using AI or not, just like it never mattered if you were using C or Java or Lisp, or using Emacs or Visual Studio, or using a debugger or printf's, or using Git or SVN or Rational ClearCase. What really matters is in the end is, what you bring to market, and what your audience thinks of your product. So use all the AI you want. Or don't use it. Or use it half the time. Or use it for the hard stuff, but not the easy stuff. Or use it for the easy stuff, but not the hard stuff. Whatever! You can succeed in the market with AI-generated product; you can fail in the market with AI-generated product. You can succeed in the market with human-generated product; you can fail in the market with human-generated product.