5 ms·

Disagree - we’re being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code, and 3 months into that the tools are unusable for complex engineerin

• LordDragonfang 7mo ago
  > “I think… I don’t know… we might be six to twelve months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all of what SWEs (software engineers) do end to end.” I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility. (It's also disingenuous to use a post complaining about a behavioral regression bug as evidence that it's not progressing) Dismissing it as impossible is silly, considering how close it already is to a junior dev. Keep in mind that 14 months prior to that statement was before we even had any public reasoning models. Things really are moving that fast, it's just, at the moment, unclear how fast.
  • maccard 7mo ago
    We’ve been suggesting that programmers are going to be replaced by simpler programming languages, gui programming tools, no code tools, low code tools, and now AI. The real big step was when Claude code came out and introduced the agentic loop where it could self validate against tests/linters/tooling, but everything after that had been penned as miraculous when IME it’s a new iteration of the same thing - wild hallucinations, getting stuck in deep loops, ignoring explicit instructions and guard rails, wild tangents and just generating stuff that doesn’t work or solve the problem. > I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”. These teams aren’t saying “hey we think we’re going to majorly influence programming in 6-12 months”, they’re saying “we’re going to replace programmers”. If you can’t stand over your claims, don’t make them. _That’s_ disingenuous.
    • LordDragonfang 7mo ago
      > We’ve been suggesting that programmers are going to be replaced by simpler programming languages, gui programming tools, no code tools, low code tools, and now AI. The difference is that it's actually working this time. Non-programmers are writing full apps. Sure, they're simple ones, often just CRUD and UI, but it actually is changing things in a way it never has before. You can't assert something is the same as everything previous when there's already evidence that it's different. > No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”. Except that's not what's happening here. I'm criticizing you for misrepresenting what claim was made in the first place. No where in your evidence have you shown anyone "walking the claim back". If anything, TFA is claiming evidence of an LLM doing "most" of what SWEs do "end to end" three months ahead of schedule. If you want to present evidence Dario (or another CEO -- I'm sure Sama has made much more fantastic claims that you could falsify) made claims that didn't pan out, be my guess, but don't tell falsehoods about the evidence you are presenting. (And no, I'm not counting breathless tech reporters -- everyone knows how much to trust them when they report a cure for cancer -- they'll say everything is a miracle cure. But the fact that hundreds of "miracle weight loss cures" that never panned out made the new in the past several centuries didn't make GLP1s fake just because they had the same type of hype.)
      • maccard 7mo ago
        > The difference is that it's actually working this time. Non-programmers are writing full apps You can say this about every step along the way. C programmers replaced assembly programmers. Python programmers replaced C programmers. low code tools replaced interal tools teams. > I'm criticizing you for misrepresenting what claim was made in the first place. No where in your evidence have you shown anyone "walking the claim back". The claim is that SWES will have their work done by models in 6-12 motnhs. We are _nowhere near_ that 9 months on to it. That's all there is to say it. > If anything, TFA is claiming evidence of an LLM doing "most" of what SWEs do "end to end" three months ahead of schedule. TFA based on a model that is so good that it has to be kept from us? from the company that literally can't keep their app up? From the company who shipped an update that didn't launch? > be my guess, but don't tell falsehoods about the evidence you are presenting. I mean, I literally posted a quote from the CEO of one of the two major companies saying that SWEs are 6-12 months away from being replaced. This is fantasy talk from a guy who is incentivised to have you believe this. If the claims are that software is changing, and how we're building/deploying software is adapting to that new world then yeah that's fair enough. But the current models, harnesses and tooling are not replacing an SWE unless there's a paradigm shift in the next 3 months. And my point is that we appear t be going backwards, not forwards. > didn't make GLP1s fake just because they had the same type of hype. No, GLPs work and that's the difference.
• KronisLV 7mo ago
  > Every time I mention this I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. I feel bad for the people for whom it doesn’t work, but Claude Opus has written most of my code in 2026 so far. I had to build some tools around linting entire projects and most of my tokens are probably referencing existing stuff and parallel review iterations and tests, but it’s pretty nice and even seeing legacy code doesn’t make me want move to a farm and grow potatoes. It might be counter productive to be like: "Oh, just do X!" which works for the person suggesting it, and then have to do "But have you tried Y?" when it doesn't for the other person, if it just keeps being a never ending string of what works for one person not working for another.
  • maccard 7mo ago
    > I feel like there’s a bunch of factors for why it will never be the same for many folks, from the models and harnesses, to the domains and existing tests/tooling. If the argument is “you have to use the right model, harness, test and tooling for it to work” then it’s not replacing software engineers any time soon. The other thing is - where are all the web apps, mobile apps, games, desktop apps, from these 100x productivity multipliers. we’re 1-2 years into these tools being widely mainstream and available and I’m not seeing applications that took years to ship before appear at 100x the rate, or games being shipped by tiny teams, or new ideas of mobile apps coming out at 100x the rate. What we do see is vibe coded slop, stability issues with massive companies (windows, AWS for example), and mass layoffs back to pre-covid levels blamed on AI but everyone knows it’s a regression to the mean after a massive over hiring when money was cheap. It’s like the emperor has no clothes on this topic to me.
    • dvfjsdhgfv 7mo ago
      I wouldn't paint the image in such black terms. LLMs can be good in finding bugs and potential issues. And if you like, they can be like IntelliSense on steroids. Even agentic workflows can be good, e.g. for an initial assessment of a new large codebase. And potentially millions of other small tasks like writing one-off helper scripts etc.
• ndr 7mo ago
  Check out from this onwards and the following point. You get a nice summary on top right. Mind that Anthropic alone is doing 30B/y annualized already. Take a snapshot and check again in a few months. It's not perfect but it's much more falsifiable than a lot of the noise. https://ai-2027.com/#narrative-2026-04-30 https://ai-2027.com/#narrative-2026-04-30
  • maccard 7mo ago
    > Mind that Anthropic alone is doing 30B/Y annualised already How many crypto exchanges were pulling in hundreds of millions in funding and doing billions in trades in 2021/2022? That blog post is… really something, I’ll give you that. Im not entirely sure what else to say about it other than that.
    • piyh 7mo ago
      Trade volume and buying API credits are very dissimilar ways of measuring value. One can be wash traded into oblivion, the other is burning a hole in corporate accounts.