zlacker

It’s a rote observation at this point, but: there’s a clear discrepancy between the demonstrated value of LLMs (which is, to be clear, significant!) and the aggressive manner in which Microsoft has introduced them into their products. The latter is what you do when you can’t demonstrate value, and it produces worse outcomes by design (because it starts from the assumption that users need to be given the stick instead of the carrot).

There have been a lot of recent changes to VS Code that feel like this: the Copilot pane has been refactored to take up more space and behave less like other composed panes in the window; the integrated terminal now does overly clever and brittle things to introduce suggestions in REPLs like Python’s. Those kinds of changes have pushed me more to Zed recently, which has all of the same AI features but without the user hostility.

>>woodru+(OP)
I think a lot of this is just crappy bonus and incentive structures.

The execs want to they're using+selling AI, the investors want to believe AI can theoretically fire all the workers/drop your fixed costs, and the middle managers need to justify that they're on it by myopically pushing out features that increase the AI adoption metric.

The rushed push of AI features obviously trains your users that your AI is useless crap that just gets in the way. If you're going to do it's, make it limited and high quality first.

>>data-o+k4
Yeah, completely agreed. It just seems like such a funny place to have those kinds of perverted incentives, given that this stuff is actually kind of useful and clearly has market fit!

>>woodru+d5
I use AI a ton and I pay for Claude happily. They've found an incredibly valuable niche and built the best products for it. I almost fail to see what value an AI editor has in comparison.

I've released a number of AI fearures at work, but they're focused on being good at one specific thing.