AstroBen

6 ms·

31.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Right, and that's why it's only part of the job. The benchmarks they're currently doing compose of the AI being handed a detailed spec + tests to make pass which isn't really what developing a feature looks like. Going f
32.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
> If it can replace SWEs, then there's no reason why it can't replace say, a lawyer SWE is unique in that for part of the job it's possible to set up automated verification for correct output - so you can train a model to
33.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Everyone wouldn't starve in a few months. There is more than enough food and I have faith it'd be given out. The starvation we see today in a world where most genuinely have a chance to get out of it is nothing like a world in whi
34.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
It seems inevitable that costs will come down over time. Expensive models today will be cheap models in a few years.
35.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Of course it's what they're going for. If they could do it they'd replace all human labor - unfortunately it's looking like SWE might be the easiest of the bunch. The weirdest thing to me is how many working SWEs are act
36.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Our DNA does contain our pre-training, though. It's not true that we're an entirely blank slate.
37.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
It's not subjective at all. It's not art. Code quality = less bugs long term. Code quality = faster iteration and easier maintenance. If things are bad enough it becomes borderline impossible to add features. Users absolutely care
38.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
The difference here is that everyone else in this product category are also sprinting full steam ahead trying to get as many users as they can If they DIDN'T heavily vibe-code it they might fall behind. Speed of implementation short te
39.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
> it doesn't really matter in the end if you have one of the top models in a disruptive new product category where everyone else is sprinting also, sure..
40.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
99.999999% of products can't get away with what Anthropic is able to - this is a one in a billion disruptive product with minimal competition, and its success so far is mostly due to Claude the model, not the agent harness
41.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Strange, even
42.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Do you really think developers are going through the hellish pain of dealing with Google and Apple for no reason? Real world users prefer and expect apps as opposed to web versions for many product categories.
43.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Kimi K2.5 (as an example) is an open model with 1T params. I don't see a reason it has to be local for most use cases- the fact that it's open is what's important.
44.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Unfortunately the fools holding the bag are going to be those who own index funds when these companies are inserted into them.
45.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
Things must be bad if they're doing this before their IPO
46.
by AstroBen 6mo ago
By working in this way you're proactively de-skilling yourself. Do it long enough and you're now replaceable by anyone that can type a prompt.
47.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
Fun fact: the person who wrote that original "Claude Code has re-ignited a passion" never commented or posted again. In fact that was their first and only contribution. Weird.
48.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
"Notably, increases in codebase size are a major determinant of increases in static analysis warnings and code complexity, and absorb most variance in the two outcome variables. However, even with strong controls for codebase size dyna
49.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
They're measuring development speed through lines of code. To show that's true they'd need to first show that AI and humans use the same number of lines to solve the same problem. That hasn't been my experience at all. A
50.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
Uh huh.. but the data in Andrej's visualizer is showing software development growth outlook is at 15% (much faster than average) Over the past year (where Opus has supposedly changed the game), we're seeing ~10% more job postings
51.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
I do too, but it comes from a bang-for-your-buck and not a test coverage standpoint. Test coverage goes up in importance as you lean more on AI to do the implementation IMO.
52.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
This is fantasy completely disconnected from reality. Have you ever tried writing tests for spaghetti code? It's hell compared to testing good code. LLMs require a very strong test harness or they're going to break things. Have yo
53.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
If an LLM could be profitable trading why wouldn't the creators use it themselves and not release it? It'd be by far the most profitable thing they could do.
54.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
Yes I'm with you. I spent the last 2 months heavily doing "agentic engineering" and I don't think it's optimal to work like that as a default. LLMs are for sure useful and a productivity boost but generating 99% of
55.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
You're trusting AI to trade with your real money?
56.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
I'm stating it here before anyone accuses me of being an LLM that I love using fanfic drama dots and I loved them before AI started with it.
57.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
The problem with AI writing isn't its style, it's the content. It's full of fluff. Analogies that sound like something a 12 year old would make, but make no sense when you stop to think about them. It's full of baloney t
58.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
Because now that website is fully cross-platform and sandboxed with no practical downside
59.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
The average user doesn't even know what a file is
60.
by AstroBen 7mo ago
I don't know how other people work, but writing the code for me has been essential in even understanding the problem space. The architecture and design work in a lot of cases is harder without going through that process.

More ›