I noticed that LLMs need a very heavy hand in guiding the architecture, otherwise they'll add architectural tech debt. One easy example is that I noticed them breaking abstractions (putting things where they don't belong). Unfortunately, there's not that much self-retrospection on these aspects if you ask about the quality of the code or if there are any better ways of doing it. Of course, if you pick up that something is in the wrong spot and prompt better, they'll pick up on it immediately.
I also ended up blowing through $15 of LLM tokens in a single evening. (Previously, as a heavy LLM user including coding tasks, I was averaging maybe $20 a month.)
This is a feature, not a bug. LLMs are going to be the next "OMG my AWS bill" phenomenon.
LLMs are now being positioned as "let them work autonomously in the background" which means no one will be watching the cost in real time.
Perhaps I can set limits on how much money each task is worth, but very few would estimate that properly.
The only people who believe this level of AI marketing are the people who haven't yet used the tools.
> which means no one will be watching the cost in real time.
Maybe some day there's an agentic coding tool that goes off into the weeds and runs for days doing meaningless tasks until someone catches it and does a Ctrl-C, but the tools I've used are more likely to stop short of the goal than to continue crunching indefinitely.
Regardless, it seems like a common experience for first-timers to try a light task and then realize they've spent $3, instantly setting expectations for how easy it is to run up a large bill if you're not careful.