I honestly think we’re being played.
But then I never really hear any update on whether the high is still there or if it's tapered off and now they're hitting reality.
Fwiw, I use Claude Pro in my own side project. When it’s great, I think it’s a miracle. But when it hits a problem it’s a moron.
Recently I was fascinated to see it (a) integrate swagger into a golang project in two minutes with full docs added for my api endpoints, and then (b) spend 90 minutes unable to figure out that it couldn’t align a circle to the edge of a canvas because it was moving the circle in increments of 20px and the canvas was 150px wide.
Where it’s good it’s a very good tool, where it’s bad it’s very bad indeed.
I think it's legitimately possible to get something done in a week that used to take 3 months, without realizing that you haven't actually done that.
You might have all the features that would have taken 3 months, but you personally have zero understanding of the code produced. And that code is horrible. The LLM won't be able to take it further, and you won't either.
I think we're seeing people on a high before they've come to understand what they have.
(Or at the extreme end, this is what something like C++ templates were for).
This is not the first time the industry has been down this road. They're not in themselves bad tools but their hype engenders a lot of overconfidence in non-technical users.
I've got colleagues desperate to be seen as on board with all the AI experiments and they just write things like "tool X is MILES better than tool Y". Leadership laps it up
They never provide any evidence.
Supposing this is true, who is playing us and why?