camdenreslink

7 ms·

61.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
Yea, what the heck.
62.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
If you were using Python, then probably not.
63.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
If the AI slop software managed to get a user base, then you can't just throw it away and completely start over. You need to modify it in a way that is seamless for your users. If all code becomes single use, are users generating it fo
64.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
The AI note summaries in meetings I'm in are frequently totally inaccurate. They are actually inaccurate in two ways: they fabricate things that were never said (but always kind of close to something that was said), and they emphasize
65.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
Writing tests against a bad implementation usually doesn't work well. In this scenario I would have an LLM look at the changes in the branch and try to create a markdown document of the changes, why it thinks they were made, etc. and t
66.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
If you work on a product that has an existing user base that has an expectation that things will still work then you definitely still need to read the code. LLMs frequently break things or introduce subtle incompatibilities. Maybe on projec
67.
by camdenreslink 5mo ago
Total volume of usage is not an advancement, it’s orthogonal.
68.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
No? Can an AI examine a patient in the physical world?
69.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Dotnet core was also a move in that direction with large portions being open source.
70.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
I don't think strong development teams are still letting SQL injection vulnerabilities through by manually concatenating strings to build queries with user-provided data. Not in the year 2026.
71.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
The problem is in validating the prototype. Whether the users are consumers or enterprises or internal stakeholders, they aren’t going to try 10 different prototypes. They will try one or two. Most business software isn’t complicated to imp
72.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Why will Anthropic be able to do that? That assumes there won't be competition and switching costs will be high. That doesn't seem to be the case to me.
73.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Are vehicles usually on a 20 year depreciation schedule?
74.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
I question the premise that faster iteration on prototypes leads to better revenue or business outcomes.
75.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Well, that is still having the LLM write code which is more like my second scenario. I use SOTA LLMs for coding literally every day. I don't think my knowledge is "outdated by at least a year".
76.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
If you are using an LLM to actually fetch that data, combine it, and present it to you in an ad hoc way (like you run the same prompt every month or something), I wouldn't trust that at all. It still hallucinates, invents things and ta
77.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
I am also curious about the correlation between more PRs getting merged faster and actual business outcomes. My impression has always been it's more important the build the correct thing (what the customer needs/wants) rather than
78.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
It could be. Or just smarter caching (which wouldn't necessarily have to do with model intelligence). Or just overfitting on the 95% most common prompts (which could save tokens but make the models less intelligent/flexible).
79.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
My guess is that it is just too expensive to make generally available. Sounds similar to ChatGPT 4.5 which was too expensive to be practical.
80.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Yes? Saying "conspiracy" is overstating things. A company can make a marketing push overselling their product and then have exclusive corporate partners that benefit from being associated with that marketing. That just seems like
81.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
It actually seems like people are shipping 10x more bugs, not fixing 10x more bugs.
82.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Are they actually too dangerous to publicly release? It seems like a little bit of marketing from the model-producing companies to raise more funding. It's important to look at who specifically is making that statement and what their i
83.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
And/or it isn’t cost effective to run.
84.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
ChatGPT 5.4 with extra high reasoning has worked really well for me, and I don't notice a huge difference with Opus 4.6 with high reasoning (those are the 2 models/thinking modes I've used the most in the last month or so).
85.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
I imagine it is way more affordable in terms of tokens to implement a feature in a well organized code base, rather than a hacky mess of a codebase that is the result of 30 band-aid fixes stacked on top of each other.
86.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Reddit comes to mind. I have so many issues with their mobile website. The back button has been broken for years, comments will frequently just hang as loading indefinitely (only fixable with a hard refresh), videos will sometimes not be re
87.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Oh interesting, then it was likely the owner of the gambling site itself doing this shady stuff.
88.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
I think it can write working TypeScript code, and it can write good TypeScript code if it is guided by a knowledgable programmer. It requires actually reviewing all the code and giving pointed feedback though (which at that point is only sl
89.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
> Look at all the apps people are building are building for themselves with AI. The apps those people were making before LLMs became ubiquitous were no apps. So by definition they are now larger and more ambitious.
90.
by camdenreslink 6mo ago
Apps are getting bigger and more ambitious in scope as developers try to take advantage of any boost in production LLMs provide them.

More ›