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
I think we're talking past each other. There's always been a threshold: above it, code changes are worth the effort; below it, they sit in backlog purgatory. AI tools so far seem to lower implementation costs, moving the threshold down so more backlog items become viable. The "5x productivity" crowd is excited about this expanded scope, while skeptics correctly note the highest value work hasn't fundamentally changed.

I think what's happening is two groups using "productivity" to mean completely different things: "I can implement 5x more code changes" vs "I generate 5x more business value." Both experiences are real, but they're not the same thing.

https://peoplesgrocers.com/en/writing/ai-productivity-parado...

>>marxis+ne
I think this is actually a really good point. I was just recently thinking that LLMs are (amongst other things) great for streamlining these boring energy-draining items that "I just want done" and aren't particularly interesting, but at the same time they do very little to help us juggle more complex codebases right now.

Sure, they might help you onboard into a complex codebase, but that's about it.

They help in breadth, not depth, really. And to be clear, to me that's extremely helpful, cause working on "depth" is fun and invigorating, while working on "breadth" is more often than not a slog, which I'm happy to have Claude Code write up a draft for in 15 minutes, review, do a bunch of tweaks, and be done with.

>>cube22+1g
+1 this breadth vs depth framing. I notice this in aider itself: What right does that project have to support all those command line options, covering every little detail, and all optionally via Env variables too, and/or yaml file, and .MD docs of them all up to date? Answer: aider itself was clearly used to write all that breadth of features.