4 ms·

> at least as well as the bottom 10% of programmers I don't think this is the flex you think it is... in my experience, the bottom 10% of programmers are activ

> at least as well as the bottom 10% of programmers I don't think this is the flex you think it is... in my experience, the bottom 10% of programmers are actively harmful and should never be allowed near your codebase.

GorbachevyChase 7mo ago
Quite a few people think that about Claude code. I disagree with them, personally, but I think we can agree that AI code generation is qualitatively at least as good as the worst human professionals. I think we would also probably agree that the state of the art today is not as good as the very best. The value per dollar spent is a different calculus and I would say that state of the art models completely surpass any individual’s productive output.
- notpachet 7mo ago
  I don't understand how: > the state of the art today is not as good as the very best and > state of the art models completely surpass any individual’s productive output are not contradictory. If the models completely surpass any individual's productive output, doesn't that mean they're better than the best humans? Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "surpassing productive output." Are you talking about raw quantity over quality? I mean, yeah... but I could also do that with a bash script.
  - famouswaffles 7mo ago
    >are not contradictory. If the models completely surpass any individual's productive output, doesn't that mean they're better than the best humans? It would be contradictory if we were talking about a human sure, but we're not. We're talking about a machine that can read thousands of words in seconds and spit thousands in slightly longer. >Are you talking about raw quantity over quality? I mean, yeah... but I could also do that with a bash script. Well except you can't. You can't replace what LLMs can do with a bash script unless your bash script is calling some other LLM.

GorbachevyChase 7mo ago

Quite a few people think that about Claude code. I disagree with them, personally, but I think we can agree that AI code generation is qualitatively at least as good as the worst human professionals. I think we would also probably agree that the state of the art today is not as good as the very best. The value per dollar spent is a different calculus and I would say that state of the art models completely surpass any individual’s productive output.

notpachet 7mo ago
I don't understand how: > the state of the art today is not as good as the very best and > state of the art models completely surpass any individual’s productive output are not contradictory. If the models completely surpass any individual's productive output, doesn't that mean they're better than the best humans? Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "surpassing productive output." Are you talking about raw quantity over quality? I mean, yeah... but I could also do that with a bash script.
- famouswaffles 7mo ago
  >are not contradictory. If the models completely surpass any individual's productive output, doesn't that mean they're better than the best humans? It would be contradictory if we were talking about a human sure, but we're not. We're talking about a machine that can read thousands of words in seconds and spit thousands in slightly longer. >Are you talking about raw quantity over quality? I mean, yeah... but I could also do that with a bash script. Well except you can't. You can't replace what LLMs can do with a bash script unless your bash script is calling some other LLM.