zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
I’d love to see the authors of effusive praise of generative AI like this provide the proof of the unlimited powers of their tools in code. If GAI (or agents, or whatever comes next …) is so effective it should be quite simple to prove that by creating an AI only company and in short order producing huge amounts of serviceable code to do useful things. So far I’ve seen no sign of this, and the best use case seems to be generating text or artwork which fools humans into thinking it has coherent meaning as our minds love to fill gaps and spot patterns even where there are none. It’s also pretty good at reproducing things it has seen with variations - that can be useful.

So far in my experience watching small to medium sized companies try to use it for real work, it has been occasionally useful for exploring apis, odd bits of knowledge etc, but overall wasted more time than it has saved. I see very few signs of progress.

The time has come for llm users to put up or shut up - if it’s so great, stop telling us and show and use the code it generated on its own.

>>grey-a+ba
That's a strawman.

Nobody is saying it's "unlimited powers", that's your exaggeration.

And what you're proposing about an "AI only company" seems to be based on your misunderstanding.

What this article is saying is, you need the same number of senior developers, but now each one is essentially assisted by a few junior developers virtually for free.

That's huge. But saying you want to see an "AI only company" as "proof" has nothing to do with that.

And what you're describing -- "occasionally useful for exploring apis, odd bits of knowledge etc, but overall wasted more time than it has saved" -- is exactly what the author explicitly addresses at the top:

> If you were trying and failing to use an LLM for code 6 months ago, you’re not doing what most serious LLM-assisted coders are doing. People coding with LLMs today use agents...

The entire article is about how to use LLM's effectively. What kind of "proof" do you really want, when the article explains it all awfully clearly?