The way I see it, I can just start using AI once they get good enough for my type of work. Until then I'm continuing to learn instead of letting my brain atrophy.
I don't think that's true.
I'm really good at getting great results out of coding agents and LLMs. I've also been using LLMs for code on an almost daily basis since ChatGPT's release on November 30th 2022. That's more than three years ago now.
Meanwhile I see a constant flow of complaints from other developers who can't get anything useful out of these machines, or find that the gains they get are minimal at best.
Using this stuff well is a deep topic. These things can be applied in so many different ways, and to so many different projects. The best asset you can develop is an intuition for what works and what doesn't, and getting that intuition requires months if not years of personal experimentation.
I don't think you can just catch up in a few weeks, and I do think that the risk of falling behind isn't being taken seriously enough by much of the developer population.
I'm glad to see people like antirez ringing the alarm bell about this - it's not going to be a popular position but it needs to be said!
Also, Simon, with all due respect, and I mean it, I genuinely look in awe at the amount of posts you have on your blog and your dedication, but it’s clear to anyone that the projects you created and launched before 2022 far exceed anything you’ve done since. And I will be the first to say that I don’t think that’s because of LLMs not being able to help you. But I do think it’s because what makes you really, really good at engineering you kept replacing slowly but surely with LLMs more and more by the month.
If I look at Django, I can clearly see your intelligence, passion, and expertise there. Do you feel that any of the projects you’ve written since LLMs are the main thing you focus on are similar?
Think about it this way: 100% of you wins against 100% of me any day. 100% of Claude running on your computer is the same as 100% of Claude running on mine. 95% of Claude and 5% of you, while still better than me (and your average Joe), is nowhere near the same jump from 95% Claude and 5% me.
I do worry when I see great programmers like you diluting their work.
It’s not just Simon that we’re getting less of, it’s YOU we’re getting less of too. And we want you around. Don’t go.
I’m keen to understand your reasoning on this. I don’t agree, but maybe I’m just stuck with old practices, so help me?
What’s your justification as to why starting a new chat is an antipattern?
The opposite is true now. The context windows are enormous, and the bots are able to stay on task extremely well. They're able to utilize any previous context you've provided as part of the conversation for the new task, which improves their performance.
The new pattern I am using is a master chat that I only ever change if I am doing something entirely different
I still find LLMs perform best with a potent and focussed context to work with, and performance goes down quite significantly the more context it has.
What’s your experience been?
As we migrated to newer models (gemini-3.0 and the o4-mini models) we again found it performed even better with x00k tokens. Our system prompt grew to about 20k tokens and the bots were able to handle it perfectly. Our issue became time to first token with large context, rather than the bot quality.
The ultra large 1m+ llama models were reported to be ineffective at >1m context. But at this point, it becomes so cost prohibitive to use anyway.
I am continuing to have success using Cursor's Auto model, and GPT-5.1 with extremely long conversations. I use different chats for different problems moreso for my own compartmentalisation of thoughts, rather than as a necessity for the bot.
I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it is true. Take simonw and tymscar, put them each in charge of a team of 19 engineers (of identical capabilities). Is the result "nowhere near the same jump" as simonw vs. tymscar alone? I think it's potentially a much bigger jump, if there are differences in who has better ideas and not just who can code the fastest.
With LLMs its admittedly a bit closer to doing it yourself because the feedback loop is much tighter
There's a learning curve to any toolset, and it may be that using coding agents effectively is more than a few weeks of upskilling. It may be, and likely will be, that people make their whole careers about being experts on this topic.
But it's still a statistical text prediction model, wrapped in fancy gimmicks, sold at a loss by mostly bad faith actors, and very far from its final form. People waiting to get on the bandwagon could well be waiting to pick up the pieces once it collapses.
But I'm still seeing clear evidence it IS a statistical text prediction model. You ask it the right niche thing and it can only pump out a few variations of the same code, that's clearly someone else's code stolen almost verbatim.
And I just use it 2 or 3 times a day.
How are SimonW and AntiRez not seeing the same thing?
How are they not seeing the propensity for both Claude + ChatGPT to spit out tons of completely pointless error handling code, making what should be a 5 line function a 50 line one?
How are they not seeing that you constantly have to nag it to use modern syntax. Typescript, C#, Python, doesn't matter what you're writing in, it will regularly spit out code patterns that are 10 years out of date. And woe betide you using a library that got updated in the last 2 years. It will constantly revert back to old syntax over and over and over again.
I've also had to deal with a few of my colleagues using AI code on codebases they don't really understand. Wrong sort, id instead of timestamp. Wrong limit. Wrong json encoding, missing key converters. Wrong timezone on dates. A ton of subtle, not obvious, bugs unless you intimately know the code, but would be things you'd look up if you were writing the code.
And that's not even including the bit where the AI obviously decided to edit the wrong search function in a totally different part of the codebase that had nothing to do with what my colleague was doing. But didn't break anything or trigger any tests because it was wrapped in an impossible to hit if clause. And it created a bunch of extra classes to support this phantom code, so hundreds of new lines of code just lurking there, not doing anything but if I hadn't caught it, everyone thinks it does do something.
The real unlock though is the coding agent harnesses. It doesn't matter any more if it statistically predicts junk code that doesn't compile, because it will see the compiler error and fix it. If you tell it "use red/green TDD" it will write the tests first, then spot when the code fails to pass them and fix that too.
> How are they not seeing the propensity for both Claude + ChatGPT to spit out tons of completely pointless error handling code, making what should be a 5 line function a 50 line one?
TDD helps there a lot - it makes it less likely the model will spit out lines of code that are never executed.
> How are they not seeing that you constantly have to nag it to use modern syntax. Typescript, C#, Python, doesn't matter what you're writing in, it will regularly spit out code patterns that are 10 years out of date.
I find that if I use it in a codebase with modern syntax it will stick to that syntax. A prompting trick I use a lot is "git clone org/repo into /tmp and look at that for inspiration" - that way even a fresh codebase will be able to follow some good conventions from the start.
Plus the moment I see it write code in a style I don't like I tell it what I like instead.
> And that's not even including the bit where the AI obviously decided to edit the wrong search function in a totally different part of the codebase that had nothing to do with what my colleague was doing.
I usually tell it which part of the codebase to execute - or if it decides itself I spot that and tell it that it did the wrong thing - or discard the session entirely and start again with a better prompt.
As you have to explain much of this, the natural language words written are much more than just the code and less precise, so it actually takes much longer to type and is more ambiguous. And obviously at the moment ChatGPT tends to make assumptions without asking you, Claude is a little better at asking you for clarification.
I find it so much faster to just ask Claude/ChatGPT for an example of what I'm trying to do and then cut/paste/modify it myself. So just use them as SO on steriods, no agents, no automated coding. Give me the example, and I'll integrate it.
And the end code looks nothing like the supplied example.
I tried using AquaVoice (which is very good) to dictate to it, and that slightly helped, but often I found myself going so slowly just fully prompting the AI when I would have already finished the new code myself at that point.
I was thinking about this last night, I do wonder if this is another example of the difference between deep/narrow coding of specialist/library code and shallow/wide of enterprise/business code.
If you're writing specialist code (like AntiRez), it's dealing with one tight problem. If you're writing enterprise code, it has to take into account so many things, explaining it all to the AI takes forever. Things like use the correct settings from IUserContext, add to the audit in the right place, use the existing utility functions from folder X, add json converters for this data structure, always use this different date encoding because someone made a mistake 10 years ago, etc.
I get that some of these would end up in agents.md/claude.md, but as many people have complained, AI agents often rapidly forget those as the context grows so you have to go through any code generated with a toothcomb, or get it to generate a disproportionate amount of tests, which again you have to explain each and every one.
I guess that will be fixed eventually. But from my perspective, as they're still changing so rapidly and much advice from even 6/9 months ago is now utterly wrong, why not just wait.
I, like many others on this thread, also believe that it's going to take about a week to get up-to-speed when they're finally ready. It's not that I can't use them now, it's that they're slow, unreliable, prone to being a junior on steriods, and actually create more work when reviewing the code than if I'd just written it myself in the first place, and the code is much, much, much worse than MY code. Not necessarily all the people I've worked with's code, but definitely MY code is usually 50-90% more concise.
> If you're writing enterprise code, it has to take into account so many things, explaining it all to the AI takes forever. Things like use the correct settings from IUserContext, add to the audit in the right place, use the existing utility functions from folder X, add json converters for this data structure, always use this different date encoding because someone made a mistake 10 years ago, etc.
The fix for this is... documentation. All of these need to be documented in a place that's accessible to the agent. That's it.
I've just about one-shotted UI features with Claude just by giving it a screenshot of the Figma design (couldn't be bothered with the MCP) and the ticket about the feature.
It used our very custom front-end components correctly, used the correct testing library, wrote playwright tests and everything. Took me maybe 30 minutes from first prompt to PR.
If I (a backend programmer) had to do it, it would've taken me about a day of trying different things to see which one of the 42 different ways of doing it worked.
I'm fullstack, I use AI for FE too. They've been able to do the screenshot trick for over a year now. I know it's pretty good at making a page, but the code is usually rubbish and you'll have a bunch of totally unnecessary useEffect, useMemo and styling in that page that it's picked up from its training data. Do you have any idea what all the useEffect() and useMemo() it's littered all over your new page do? I can guarantee almost all of them are wrong or unnecessary.
I use that page you one-shotted as a starting point, it's not production-grade code. The final thing will look nothing like it. Good for solving the blank page problem for me though.
I'm not having those problems at all... because I've developed a robust intuition for how to avoid them!
Honestly, what you're describing sounds like the older models. If you are getting these sorts of results with Opus 4.5 or 5.2-codex on high I would be very curious to see your prompts/workflow.
There are only so many ways to express the same idea. Even clean room engineers write incidentally identical code to the source sometimes.
That's the level of tell-tale that's its just stealing code and modifying a couple of variable names.
For me personally, the code I've seen might be written in a slightly weird style, or have strange, not applicable to the question, additions.
They're so obviously not "clean room" code or incredibly generic, they're the opposite, they're incredibly specific.
> But it's still a statistical text prediction model
This is reductive to the point of absurdity. What other statistical text prediction model can make tool calls to CLI apps and web searches? It's like saying "a computer is nothing special -- it's just a bunch of wires stuck together"
I wouldn't say it's shady or even untoward. Simon writes prolifically and he seems quite genuinely interested in this. That he has attached his public persona, and what seems like basically all of his time from the last few years, to LLMs and their derivatives is still a vested interest. I wouldn't even say that's bad. Passion about technology is what drives many of us. But it still needs saying.
> This is reductive to the point of absurdity. What other statistical text prediction model can make tool calls to CLI apps and web searches?
It's just a fact that these things are statistical text prediction models. Sure, they're marvels, but they're not deterministic, nor are they reliable. They are like a slot machine with surprisingly good odds: pull the lever and you're almost guaranteed to get something, maybe a jackpot, maybe you'll lose those tokens. For many people it's cheap enough to just keep pulling the lever until they get what they want, or go bankrupt.
Just like the stuff LLMs are being used for today. Why wouldn't "using LLMs well" be not just one of the many things LLMs will simplify too?
Or do you believe your type of knowledge is somehow special and is resistant to being vastly simplified or even made obsolete by AI?
Back in ~2024 a lot of people were excited about having "LLMs write the prompt!" but I found the results to be really disappointing - they were full of things like "You are the world's best expert in marketing" which was superstitious junk.
As of 2025 I'm finding they actually do know how to prompt, which makes sense because there's a ton more information about good prompting approaches in the training data as opposed to a couple of years ago. This has unlocked some very interesting patterns, such as Claude Code prompting sub-agents to help it explore codebases without polluting the top level token window.
But learning to prompt is not the key skill in getting good results out of LLMs. The thing that matters most is having a robust model of what they can and cannot do. Asking an LLM "can you do X" is still the kind of thing I wouldn't trust them to answer in a useful way, because they're always constrained by training data that was only aware of their predecessors.
It's different from assigning a task to a co-worker who already knows the business rules and cross-implications of the code in the real world. The agent can't see the broader picture of the stuff it's making, it can go from ignoring obvious (to a human that was present in the last planning meeting) edge cases to coding defensively against hundreds of edge cases that will never occur, if you don't add that to your prompt/context material.
- https://github.com/simonw/denobox is a new Python library that gives you the ability to run arbitrary JavaScript and WASM in a sandbox provided by Deno, because it turns out a Python library can depend on deno these days. I built that on my phone in bed yesterday morning.
- https://github.com/simonw/pwasm is a WebAssembly runtime written in pure Python with no dependencies, built by feeding Claude Code the official WASM specification along with its conformance test suite and having it hack away at that (again via my phone) to get as many of the tests to pass as possible. It's pretty slow and not really useful yet but it's certainly interesting.
- https://github.com/datasette/datasette-transactions is a Datasette plugin which provides a JSON API for starting a SQLite transaction, running multiple queries within it and then executing or rolling back that transaction. I built that one on my phone on a BART (SF Bay Area metro) trip.
- https://github.com/simonw/micro-javascript is a pure Python, no dependency JavaScript interpreter which started as a port of MicroQuickJS. Here's a demo of that one running in a browser https://simonw.github.io/micro-javascript/playground.html - that's my JavaScript interpreter running inside Python running in Pyodide in WebAssembly in your browser of choice, which I find inherently amusing.
All of those are from the past three weeks. Most of them were built on my phone while I was doing other things.
Looking at these projects, I have a few questions:
1. These seem to be fairly self-contained and well specified problems, which is the best case scenario for “vibe coding”. Do you have any examples of projects where the solution was somewhat vague and open-ended? If not, how do you think Claude Code or similar would perform?
2. Did you feel excited or energized by having an LLM implement these projects end-to-end? Personally, I find LLMs useful as a closely guided assistant, particularly to interactively explore the space of solutions. I also don’t feel energized at all by having it implement anything non-trivial end to end, outside of writing tests (and even then, not all types of tests!).
3. Do you think others would find these projects useful? In particular, if you vibe coded them, why couldn’t someone else do the same thing? And once these projects are picked up by future model training runs, they’ll probably be even easier to one shot, reducing the value even further.
Let me provide an example of what I mean by (2), at least in the context of hobbyist dev. I could have Claude Code vibe code a Gameboy emulator and it would probably do a fine job given that it’s a well specified problem that is likely well represented in its training data. But the process would neither be exciting nor energizing. I would rather spend hours gradually getting more and more working and experience the fruits of my labor (I did this already btw).
At $DAYJOB, I simply do not have confidence in an LLM doing anything non-trivial end to end. Besides, the complexity remains in defining the requirements and constraints, designing the solution, gaining consensus, and devising a plan for implementation. The goal would be for the LLM to pick up discrete, well defined chunks of work.
This one is pretty open ended, and I'm having a ton of fun designing and iterating on it: https://github.com/simonw/claude-code-transcripts - it's also attracting quite a few happy users now.
I have another project in the works in Go which is proving to be a ton of fun from a software design perspective, but it's not ready for outside eyes just yet.
"Did you feel excited or energized by having an LLM implement these projects end-to-end"
I'm enjoying myself so much right now. My BART rides have never been this entertaining before!
"Do you think others would find these projects useful? In particular, if you vibe coded them, why couldn’t someone else do the same thing?"
I don't think many developers have the combined taste and knowledge necessary to spin up Denobox or django-transactions. They both solve problems that I'm very confident need solving, but I expect to have to explain why those matter in some detail to all but a very small group of people who share my particular interests.
The other two are pretty standard - I suggest anyone who wants to learn more about JavaScript interpreters or WASM runtimes try something similar in the language of choice as a learning exercise.
> My BART rides have never been this entertaining before!
Not clear if this is snark, but if vibe coding on a train ride is actually energizing, then good for you haha.
> I don't think many developers have the combined taste and knowledge necessary to spin up Denobox or django-transactions.
Perhaps, but that’s just for now. What do you do when your “taste” no longer makes a difference? In other words, looking at the bigger picture, do you like where the field is going?
> I suggest anyone who wants to learn more about JavaScript interpreters or WASM runtimes try something similar in the language of choice as a learning exercise.
Agreed, but depending on learning style, vibe coding such a project might not teach you anything new at all :)
As a long-time user of the language I'm happy see that Go seems to be excellent for LLM agent development. The language is simple, there's only one way to do loops etc. It hasn't changed that much syntax wise (I think `any` is the only thing that LLMs miss).
Gofmt (or goimports) makes sure all code looks the same, there are VERY robust linters and a built-in testing framework so the LLM only needs to know one. And the code won't even compile if there are unused variables or other cruft.
It might be boring or verbose, but it's also very predictable and simple. All things LLMs like :D
It's also really easy to read code and understand exactly what it does, I'm still finding Rust a lot harder to decode - way more ampersands!
I think that's the reason why LLMs work so well for some like you, and generate slop for others, because if you let them alone with projects that require opinionated code and actual decision making they most often don't grasp the users intention well or worse misinterpret it so confidently that you end up with something with all the wrong opinions and decisions compounding path-dependently into the strangest and most useless slop.
Yes, exactly! How amazing is it that we have technology now that lets us quickly build projects where we would normally have to spend considerable time on the finicky implementation details?
Not that I mind, of course. As you said: amazing!
Maybe someone just check in with the CEOs who were in the news recently talking about their work force…
You should reinterpret that as "not having to type the code out be hand any more". You still need a significant depth of coding knowledge and experience to get good results out of these things. You just don't need to type out every variable declaration and for loop yourself any more.
Every single tool or utility you have in the back of your head, you can just make it in a few hours of wall-clock time, minutes of your personal active time.
Like I wanted a tool that can summarise different sources quickly, took me ~3 hours to build it using llm + fragments + OpenAI API.
Now I can just go `q <url>` in my terminal and it'll summarise just about anything.
Then I built a similar tool that can download almost anything `dl <url>` will use yt-dlp, curl and various other tools depending on the domain to download the content.
More and more I think this is it.
Because here In northern Europe you couldn’t even have a completely untrained teenager working 4 hours a week at minimum wage at that level.
There is nothing dubious about it. It’s providing verifiable value. Tasks that we would have set for developers or UX’ers last year are solved by it. At 1/50 of the cost, and with great scaling because the tasks are solved faster than you would even be able to explain them to a human and we can initiate 5-10 parallel tracks without having to onboard new people.
And sure it might not make sense to give a 200$/m AI tool to a worker you are paying 800$ but when we have devs that are paid 8000$/m then it’s great return on value to have one person being 10 times as productive at 8200$ instead of spending 80000$/m on ten developers just to be able to say we are doing authentic AI free artisanal software development.
Of course I don't know for sure if you had any substantial input other than writing a few paragraphs of prompt text and sending Claude some links, because I didn't witness your workflow there. But I think this is kind of what irks some people including myself.
What's stopping me from "building" something similar also? Maybe I won't be as fast as you since you seem to be more experienced with these tools, but at the end of the day, would you be able to describe in detail what got built without you asking Claude about it? If you don't know anything about what you built other than just prompting an AI, in my opinion you didn't actually "build" anything -- Claude did.
One of my favorite options is "directed" - "I directed this". It's not quite obvious enough for me to use it in comments on threads like this though.
I've also experimented with "We built" but that feels uncomfortably like anthropomorphizing the model.
One of the reasons I publish almost all of my prompts and transcripts is that I don't believe in gatekeeping this stuff and I want other people to be able to learn how to do what I can do. Here are the transcripts for me Denobox project, for example: https://github.com/simonw/denobox/tree/transcripts - you can view those with my new https://orphanhost.github.io/ tool like this: https://orphanhost.github.io/?simonw/denobox/transcripts/ses...
I don't say "my tablesaw and I built this table" I say "I built this table"
When you build a table, you use a tool as a means to an end, i.e. you use the tool to cut and shape, but you are fully in control and engaged in the process. When you prompt an LLM, you tell it what to do and it does something for you. How is that not the same as telling someone else to build the table for you? You don't say "I built the table", you say "I got someone else to build the table for me."
I think it's great that simonw responded with some information on his process, that definitely helps provide perspective on how he engaged with Claude to make these projects.
People are under zero obligation to release their work to the public. Simon actually publishes and writes about a remarkable amount of the side projects he builds with AI.
The rest of us just build tons of cool stuff for personal use or for $JOB. Releasing stuff to the public is, in general, a massive amount of extra work for very little benefit. There are loads of FOSS maintainers trapped spending as much time managing their communities as they do their actual projects and many of us just don't have time for that.
I wouldn't worry about this.
There are many examples of people sharing a project they've used LLMs to help write, and the result was not a huge amount of attention & expectation of burden.
Perhaps "I don't share it because I'm worried people will love it too much" even suggests the opposite: you can concretely demonstrate the kinds of things you've been able to build using LLMs.
> This is such a tired response at this point.
Lack of specificity & concrete examples frequently mean all that's left for discussion is emotion for hype and anti-hype, though.
In this thread, the discussion was:
pro: use LLMs or get left behind
conserve: okay, I'll start using LLMs when they're good
pro: no no they won't be that good, it takes effort to get to use them
conserve: do you have any examples?
pro: why should we have to share examples?
Software quality has been on a step downwards curve as far as quality and capabilities are concerned, for years before LLM coding had its breakthrough. For all the promises I'd have expected to, three years later, at least notice the downward trajectory easing off. But it hasn't been happening.
> I could if I wanted to, but I just don't feel like it.
What am I missing where I can understand that's not what you meant?
People seem to believe that there is a burden of proof. There is not. What do I care if you are on board?
I don't know what could change your mind, but of course the answer is "nothing" as long as you aer not open to it. Just look around. There is so much stuff, from so many credible people in all domains. If you can't find anything that is convincing or at least interesting to you, you are simply not looking.
The burden of proof rests on those making the positive claim. You say you don't care if others get on board, but a) clearly a lot of others do (case in point: the linked article) and b) a quick check of your posts in this very thread shows that you are indeed making positive claims about the merits of LLM assisted software development.
Without enough adoption expect some companies you are a client of to increase prices more, or close entirely down the road, due to insufficient cash inflow.
So, you would care, if you want to continue to use these tools and see them evolve, instead of seeing the bubble pop.
This is baffling. Why would you make the claim if you do not care if we are on board? Who are you talking to if not exactly those who you care to convince?
https://github.com/williamcotton/gramgraph
The motivation? I needed a declarative plotting language for another DSL I'm working on called Web Pipe:
GET /weather.svg
|> fetch: `https://api.open-meteo.com/v1/forecast?latitude=52.52&longitude=13.41&hourly=temperature_2m`
|> jq: `
.data.response.hourly as $h |
[$h.time, $h.temperature_2m] | transpose | map({time: .[0], temp: .[1]})
`
|> gg({ "type": "svg", "width": 800, "height": 400} ): `
aes(x: time, y: temp)
| line()
| point()
`
https://github.com/williamcotton/webpipe
https://github.com/williamcotton/webpipe-lsp
https://williamcotton.com/articles/basic-introduction-to-web...
I've been working at quite a clip for a solo developer who is building a new language with a full featured set of tooling.
I'd like to think that the approach to building the BDD-testing framework directly into the language itself and having the test runner using the production request handlers is at least somewhat novel!
GET /hello/:world
|> jq: `{ world: .params.world }`
|> handlebars: `<p>hello, {{world}}</p>`
describe "hello, world"
it "calls the route"
let world = "world"
when calling GET /hello/{{world}}
then status is 200
and selector `p` text equals "hello, {{world}}"
- https://tools.simonwillison.net/bullish-bearish
- https://tools.simonwillison.net/user-agent
I can't gauge the other two since I don't use those things, so maybe they are cool, idk.
For more impressive examples see https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/10/html-tools/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46574276#46582192
If you're here to converse in good faith, what's your opinion of the examples I shared in this post over here? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46574276#46582192
To some extend it's an understandable ask, but obviously even with a decent productivity boost side projects still require a lot of time and effort before a possible public release.
It's intuitive to use but hard to master
If you never AI coded before then get ready for fun!
Maybe AI gets good enough at writing code that it's users' knowledge of computer science and software development becomes irrelevant. In that case, approximately everyone on this site is just screwed. We're all in the business of selling that specialized knowledge, and if it's no longer required then companies aren't going to pay us to operate the AI, they're going to pay PMs, middle managers, executives, etc. But even that won't be particularly workable long term, because all their customers will realize they no longer need to pay the companies for software either. In this world, the price of software goes to zero (and hosting likely gets significantly more commoditized than it is now). Any time you put into learning to use LLMs for software development doesn't help you keep making money selling software, and actually stops you from picking up a new career.
If, on the other hand, CS and software engineering knowledge is still needed, companies will have to keep/restart hiring or training new developers. In terms of experience using AI, it is impossible for anyone to have less experience than these new developers. We will, however, have much more experience and knowledge of the aforementioned non-LLM skills that we're assuming (in this scenario) are still necessary for the job. In this scenario you might be better off if you'd started learning to prompt a bit earlier, but you'll still be fine if you didn't.
This has been my experience. When something gets good enough, someone will create some really good resource on it. Allowing the dust to settle, to me is a more efficient strategy than constantly trying to “keep up”. Maybe also not waiting too long to do so.
This wouldn’t work of course if a person was trying to be some AI thought leader.
What's the impressive thing that can convince me it's equivalent, or better than anything created before, or without it?
I understand you've produced a lot of things, and that your clout (which depends on the AI ferver) is based largely because of how refined a workflow you've invented. But I want to see the product, rather than the hype.
Make me say; I wish I was good enough to create this!
Without that, all I can see is the cost, or the negative impact.
edit: I've read some of your other posts, and for my question, I'd like to encourage you to pick only one. Don't use the scatter shot approach that LLMs love, giving plenty of examples, hoping I'll ignore the noise for the single that sounds interesting.
Pick only one. What project have you created that you're truly proud of?
I'll go first, (even though it's unfinished): Verse
Things that they couldn't do six months go might now be things that they can do - and knowing they couldn't do X six months ago is useful because it helps systematize your explorations.
A key skill here is to know what they can do, what they can't do and what the current incantations are that unlock interesting capabilities.
A couple I've learned in the past week:
1. Don't give Claude Code a URL to some code and tell it to use that, because by default it will use its WebFetch tool but that runs an extra summarization layer (as a prompt injection defense) which loses details. Telling it to use curl sometimes works but a guaranteed trick is to have it git clone the relevant repo to /tmp and look at the code there instead.
2. Telling Claude Code "use red/green TDD" is a quick to type shortcut that will cause it to write tests first, run them and watch them fail, then implement the feature and run the test again. This is a wildly effective technique for getting code that works properly while avoiding untested junk code that isn't needed.
Now multiply those learnings by three years. Sure, the stuff I figure out in 2023 mostly doesn't apply today - but the skills I developed in learning how to test and iterate on my intuitions from then still count and still keep compounding.
The idea that you don't need to learn these things because they'll get better to the point that they can just perfectly figure out what you need is AGI science fiction. I think it's safe to ignore.
A somewhat intelligent junior will dive deep for one week and be on the same knowledge level as you in roughly 3 years.
In particular, the idea of saying something like "use red/green TDD" is an expression of communication skill (and also, of course, awareness of software methodology jargon).
And if the hype is right, why would you need to know any of them? I've seen people unironically suggest telling the LLM to "write good code", which seems even easier.
Telling an intern to care about code quality might actually cause an intern who hasn't been caring about code quality to care a little bit more. But it isn't going to help the intern understand the intended purpose of the software.
> prompting the AI with words that you'd actually use when asking a human to perform the task, generally works better
Ok, but why would you assume that would remain true? There's no reason it should.
As AI starts training on code made by AI, you're going to get feedback loops as more and more of the training data is going to be structured alike and the older handwritten code starts going stale.
If you're not writing the code and you don't care about the structure, why would you ever need to learn any of the jargon? You'd just copy and paste prompts out of Github until it works or just say "hey Alexa, make me an app like this other app".
It's also useful for figuring out what I think and how best to express that. Sometimes I get really great replies too - I compared ethical LLM objections to veganism today on Lobste.rs and got a superb reply explaining why the comparison doesn't hold: https://lobste.rs/s/cmsfbu/don_t_fall_into_anti_ai_hype#c_oc...
Like when working with video, if you use "timecode" instead of "timestamp", it'll use the video production part of the vector memory more. Video production people always talk about "timecodes", not "timestamps".
You can also explain the idea of red/green testing the long way without mentioning any of the keywords. It might work, but just knowing you can say "use red/green testing" is a magic shortcut to the correct result.
Thus: working with LLMs is a skill, but also an ever-changing skill.
At some point you'll just have to accept the tool isn't for everyone =)
I agree that CC becoming omniscient is science fiction, but the goal of these interfaces is to make LLM-based coding more accessible. Any strategies we adopt to mitigate bad outcomes are destined to become part of the platform, no?
I've been coding with LLMs for maybe 3 years now. Obviously a dev who's experienced with the tools will be more adept than one who's not, but if someone started using CC today, I don't think it would take them anywhere near that time to get to a similar level of competency.
Could it be, they use other definition of "good"?
Being "a person who can code" carries some prestige and signals intelligence. For some, it has become an important part of their identity.
The fact that this can now be said of a machine is a grave insult if you feel that way.
It's quite sad in a way, since the tech really makes your skills even more valuable.
From where I’m standing, I don’t see any massive difference on overall productivity between anyone all in on vibe coding than those who aren’t. There’s not more features, higher quality, etc from teams/companies out there than before on any high-level metrics/observations. Maybe it will come, but there’s also no evidence it will.
I do, however, see great gains within certain specific tasks using LLM’s. Smaller scope code gen, rubber ducking, etc. But this seems much less difficult to get good at using (and I hope for tooling that help facilitate the specific types of use cases) and on the whole amounts to marginal gains. It seems fine to be a few years late to catch up, worst case.
The intuition just doesn't hold. The LLM gets trained and retrained by other LLM users so what works for me suddenly changes when the LLM models refresh.
LLMs have only gotten easier to learn and catch up on over the years. In fact, most LLM companies seem to optimise for getting started quickly over getting good results consistently. There may come a moment when the foundations solidify and not bothering with LLMs may put you behind the curve, but we're not there yet, and with the literally impossible funding and resources OpenAI is claiming they need, it may never come.
I mean, I just think of them like a dog that'll get distracted and go off doing some other random thing if you don't supervise them enough and you certainly don't want to trust them to guard your sandwich.
It is just way easier for someone to get up to speed today than it was a year ago. Partly because capabilities have gotten better and much of what was learned 6+ months ago no longer needs to be learned. But also partly because there is just much more information out there about how to get good results, you might have coworkers or friends you can talk to who have gotten good results, you can read comments on HN or blog posts from people who have gotten good results, etc.
I mean, ok, I don't think someone can fully catch up in a few weeks. I'll grant that for sure. But I think they can get up to speed much faster than they could have a year ago.
Of course, they will have to put in the effort at that time. And people who have been putting it off may be less likely to ever do that. So I think people will get left behind. But I think the alarm to raise is more, "hey, it's a deep topic and you're going to have to put in the effort" rather than "you better start now or else it's gonna be too late".
Or would you say people shouldn't learn Django now? As it's useless as they're already far behind? They shouldn't study computer science, as it will be too late?
Every profession have new people continuously entering the workforce, that quickly get up to speed on whatever is in vogue.
Honestly, what you've spent years learning and experimenting with, someone else will be able to learn in months. People will figure out the best ways of using these tools after lots of attempts, and that distilled knowledge will be transferred quickly to others. This is surely painful to hear for those having spent years in the trenches, and is perhaps why you refuse to acknowledge it, but I think it's true.
I would say that about LLMs.
That's why I'm ringing the alarm bells here. LLM skills are not the same as framework or library usage skills. They aren't clearly documented or predictable - they're really weird!
If you assume learning to use coding agents is the same category of challenge as learning to use something like Django you'll get burned by that assumption.
You're basically saying that using LLMs is like using magic. Telling people to use intuition is basically telling that i don't know how it works and why, but works for me sometimes.
That's why we programmers hate it - we have safe space where there's no intuition - namely programming languages & runtimes with deterministic behavior. And we're shoehorned back into mess of magic/intuition and wishfullthinking.
(yes, i try llm, i have some results, i'm frustrated mostly by people AI-slopping _everything_ around me)
I am eternally frustrated that "intuition" is the key skill people need to work effectively with LLMs, because it's something I can't teach people! If I could figure out how to download my intuition into other people's heads I would do that.
Instead I have to convince people that intuition is key, and the only way to get it is to invest in experimenting.
Anyone can use a band saw to cut things. Then go look what Jimmy DiResta makes with one and you see the difference.
The chance of an inexperienced person cutting off their finger with a bandsaw is also way over zero, there are things you should not and must not do with it. As with any power tool.
Problem with AI is it isn't woodwork. The material keeps changing!
I've had this conversation with a few people so far, and I've offered to personally walk through a project of their choosing with them. Everyone who has done this has changed their perspective. You may not be convinced it will change the world, but if you approach it with an open mind and take the time to learn how to best use it, I'm 100% sure you will see that it has so much potential.
There are tons of youtube videos and online tutorials if you really want to learn.
Here we go, as I said, and again and again and again it's always out fault we're not using well. It is impossible to counter argument. Btw to reply to your question, yes many times and proved to be useful in very small specialized tasks and a couple of migrations. I really like how LLMs are helping me in my day to day, but still so far away from all this astroturfing
It might be now, but the intent of these tools is clearly not to have to learn a bunch of work arounds to get the tool to do what you want.
If these tools do improve, that inefficiency would presumably reduce, or go away entirely, which means you wouldn't see an advantage to your head start.
If these tools improve to the point where anyone can pick it up - that's great! I enjoyed my head start while it lasted.
If these tools continue to require experience and a skillset to use, that's great too - I'll continue to learn and pull ahead.
The pro AI people don't understand what quadratic attention means and the anti-ai people don't understand how much information can be contained in a tb of weights.
At the end of the day both will be hugely disappointed.
>The best asset you can develop is an intuition for what works and what doesn't, and getting that intuition requires months if not years of personal experimentation.
Intuition does not translate between models. Whatever you think dense llms were good at deepseek completely upended it in an afternoon. The difference between major revisions of model families is substantial enough that intuition is a drawback not an asset.
I've so far found that intuition travels between models of a similar generation remarkably well. The conformance suite trick (find a 9,200 test existing conformance suite and tell an agent to build a fresh implementation that passes all those tests) I first found with GPT-5.2 turned out to work exactly as well against Claude Opus 4.5, for example.
It argues that the self-attention mechanism in transformers works by having every token "attend to" every other token in a sequence, which is quadratic - n^2 against input - which should limit the total context length available to models.
This would explain why the top models have been stuck at 1 million tokens since Gemini 1.5 in February 2024 (there has been a 2 million token Gemini but it's not in wide use, and Meta claimed their Llama 4 Scout could do 10 million but I don't know of anyone who's seen that actually work.)
My counter-argument here is that Claude Opus 4.5 has a comparatively tiny 200,000 token window which turns out to work incredibly well for the kinds of coding problems we're throwing at it, when accompanied by a cleverly designed harness such as Claude Code. So this limit from 2022 has been less "disappointing" than people may have expected.
What's practically limiting context size IME is that results seem to get "muddy" and get off track when you have a giant context size. For a single-topic long session, I imagine you get a large number of places in the context which may be good matches for a given query, leading to ambiguous results.
I'm also not sure how much work is being put into reinforcement in extremely large context inference, as it's presumably quite expensive to do and hard to reliably test.
Perfect for a demo or work on a single self contained file.
Disastrous for a large code base with logic scattered all throughout it.
Greenfield is easy (but it always was). Working on well-organised modules that are self contained and cleanly designed is easy - but that always was, too.
You feel that way because it took you years or months to reach that point. But after reaching that point, do you really think that it's equally—if not more—difficult to put what you learned into words compared to, let's say, programming or engineering?
See, the thing about these tools is that they're designed to be operated via natural language, which is something most people (with a certain level of education) are quite comparable to each other at; consequently, the skill ceiling is considerably lower compared to something like programming. I am not saying there's no variance in people's ability to articulate, but that the variance is considerably less than what we get when comparing people's ability to write code or solve engineering problems.
So, whatever you learned by trial and error was just different ways or methods to get around the imperfections of the existing LLMs—not ways to use them skillfully according to their design goals. Their design goal is to achieve whatever task is given to them, as long as the intent is clear. These workarounds and tricks that you learned aren't something you build an intuition for. What you build an intuition for is finding new workarounds, but once you've found them, they're quite concrete and easy to describe to someone else who can simply use them to achieve the same results as you.
Tools that are designed to be operable via natural language aren't designed to be more thorough—it's actually the opposite. If you want more control, you have programming languages and search engines; thoroughness is where you get that high skill ceiling. The skill ceiling for using these tools is going to get narrower and narrower. The workarounds that you figure out may take skill to discover, but they don't take much skill to replicate.
If you share your "tips and tricks" with someone, then yeah, it will take them a week to start getting the same results as you because the skill ceiling is low and the workarounds are concrete/require less thinking.
Clear, unambiguous communication is a key skill to unlock LLMs. I suspect it's a lot less common than you think!
This is nonsense.
This field moves so fast the things you did more than a year ago aren't relevant anymore.
Claude code came out last year.
Anyone using random shit from before that is not using it any more. It is completely obsolete in all but a handful of cases.
To make matters worse “intuition” about models is wasted learning, because they change, significantly, often.
Stop spreading FUD.
You can be significantly less harmful to people who are trying to learn by sharing what you actually do instead of nebulously hand waving about magical BS.
Dear readers: ignore this irritating post.
Go and watch Armin Ronacher on youtube if you want to see what a real developer doing this looks like, and why its hard.
One of us is right here. I hope for your sake and the people that listen to you that it's you. I don't think it is.
You're making wild claims, and absolutely failing to back them up with evidence.
That is FUD.
People should invest, they should try things. …but its far faaaaaar less clear cut that dropping everything and focusing on AI right now is so absolutely important.
The difference between what you get prompting and a totally naïve user of claude code gets is marginal.
People are not being left behind if they try it a bit and find its ok, not great, and come back later.
It is not a deep topic.
writing AI tools is a deep topic, but most people arent doing that.
Youre in the wrong here.
Stop making people scared.
I quote antirez here, since you clearly arent interested in listening to me:
> I have a single suggestion for you, my friend. Whatever you believe about what the Right Thing should be, you can't control it by refusing what is happening right now.
> Skipping AI is not going to help you or your career. Think about it. Test these new tools, with care, with weeks of work, not in a five minutes test where you can just reinforce your own beliefs.
> Find a way to multiply yourself, and if it does not work for you, try again every few months.
If I didn't sincerely believe that I wouldn't say it.
It true that you will always be able to catch up eventually - the industry has newbies entering it all the time and I believe they will continue to make it to point where they can contribute effectively.
But if I'm right and it does take 6-12 months for most developers to get proficient there's a real career risk involved now in listening to people who say it's all hype and no substance and you should keep on sitting it out.
You'd be sage with your time just to keep a high-level view until workflows become stable and aren't advancing every few months.
The time to consider mastering a workflow is when a casual user of the "next release" wouldn't trivially supersede your capabilities.
Similarly we're still in the race to produce a "good enough" GenAI, so there isn't value in mastering anything right now unless you've already got a commercial need for it.
This all reminds me of a time when people were putting in serious effort to learn Palm Pilot's Graffiti handwriting recognition, only for the skill to be made redundant even before they were proficient at it.
This is true, but still shocking. Professional (working with others at least) developers basically live or die by their ability to communicate. If you're bad at communication, your entire team (and yourself) suffer, yet it seems like the "lone ranger" type of programmer is still somewhat praised and idealized. When trying to help some programmer friends with how they use LLMs, it becomes really clear how little they actually can communicate, and for some of them I'm slightly surprised they've been able to work with others at all.
An example the other day, some friend complained that the LLM they worked with was using the wrong library, and using the wrong color for some element, and surprised that the LLM wouldn't know it from the get go. Reading through the prompt, they never mentioned it once, and when asked about it, they thought "it should have been obvious" which yeah, to someone like you who worked for 2 years on this project that might be obvious, but for some with zero history and zero context about what you do? How you expect it to know this? Baffling sometimes.
Having worked with offshore consultant teams where there are language and cultural barriers - and needing clear specs myself. I somehow just naturally "got" how much context to give the Agent.
People who have been working solo or with like-minded people all their career might have a harder time.
The world changed for good and we will need to adapt. The bigger and more important question at this point isn't anymore if LLMs are good enough, for the ones who want to see, but, as you mention in your article, is what will happen to people who will get unemployed. There's a reality check for all of us.
Learning all of the advanced multi-agent worklows etc. etc... Maybe that gets you an extra 20%, but it costs a lot more time, and is more likely to change over time anyway. So maybe not very good ROI.
2. Build tools for the LLM, ones that are easy to use and don't spam stuff. Like give it tools to run tests that only return "Tests OK" if nothing failed, same with builds.
3. Look into /commands and Skills, both seem to be here to stay
Maybe a weekend of messing about and you'll be pretty well off compared to the vast masses who still copy/paste code out of ChatGPT to their editor.
I've learned a lot of new things this year thanks to AI. It's true that the low levels skills with atrophy. The high level skills will grow though; my learning rate is the same, just at a much higher abstraction level; thus covering more subjects.
The main concern is the centralisation. The value I can get out of this thing currently well exceeds my income. AI companies are buying up all the chips. I worry we'll get something like the housing market where AI will be about 50% of our income.
We have to fight this centralisation at all costs!
I don't think that's too far away. Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. are pushing the idea that you need a subscription but if opensource tools get good enough they could easily become an expensive irrelivance.
Always? I think that only holds for a certain amount of time (different for each sector) after which the open stuff is better.
I thought it was only true for dev tools, but I had to rethink it when I met a guy (not especially technical) who runs open source firmware on his insulin pump because the closed source stuff doesn't gives him as much control.
I’m surprised by how good the models I can run on my old M1 Max laptop are.
In a year’s time open models on something like a Mac Studio M5 Ultra are going to be very impressive compared to the closed models available today.
They won’t be state of the art for their time but they will be good enough and you’ll have full control.
Thank goodness this isn't in a problem!
Guess we are still in the 1970s era of AI computing. We need to hope for a few more step changes or some breakthrough on model size.
In fact, I'd say I code even better since I started doing one hour per day of a mixture of fun coding and algo quizzes while at work I mostly focus on writing a requirements plan and implementation plan later and then letting the AI cook while I review all the output multiple times from multiple angles.
The most advanced tooling today looks nothing like the tooling for writing software 3 years ago. We've got multi-agent orchestration with built in task and issue tracking, context management, and subagents now. There's a steep learning curve!
I'm not saying that everyone has to do it, as the tools are so nascent, but I think it is worthwhile to at least start understanding what the state of the art will look like in 12-24 months.
One of the key skills needed in working with LLMs is learning to ignore the hype and marketing and figure out what these things are actually capable of, as opposed to LinkedIn bluster and claims from CEOs who's net worth are tied to investor sentiment in their companies.
If someone spends more time talking about "AGI" then what they're actually building, filter that person out.
This is precisely what led me to realize that while they have some use for code review and analyzing docs, for coding purposes they are fairly useless.
The hypesters responses' to this assertion exclusively into 5 categories. Ive never heard a 6th.
If so, I've got a JPEG of a monkey to sell you =)
If you believe that uncritically about everything else, then you have to answer why agentic workflows or MCP or whatever is the one thing that it can't evolve to do for us. There's a logical contradiction here where you really can't have it both ways.
oh I think I do get your point now after a few rereads (correct if wrong but you’re saying it should keep getting better until there’s nothing for us to do). “AI”, and computer systems more broadly, are not and cannot be viable systems. they don’t have agency (ironically) to affect change in their environment (without humans in the loop). computer systems don’t exist/survive without people. all the human concerns around what/why remain, AI is just another tool in a long line of computer systems that make our lives easier/more efficient
Prompt Engineer to AI Engineer: Designing agentic workflows is a waste of time, just pre/postfix whatever input you'd normally give to the agentic system with the request to "build or simulate an appropriate agentic workflow for this problem"
There is a staggering number of unserious folks in the ears of people with corporate purchasing power.
your argument amounts to “some people said stupid shit one time and I took it seriously”
It's not that different overall, I suppose, from the loop of thinking of an idea and then implementing it and running tests; but potentially very disorienting for some.
- find information about APIs without needing to open a browser
- writing a plan for your business-logic changes or having it reviewed
- getting a review of your code to find edge cases, potential security issues, potential improvements
- finding information and connecting the dots of where, what and why it works in some way in your code base?
Even without letting AI author a single line of code (where it can still be super useful) there are still major uses for AI.
Part of the problem with things that iterate quickly is that iterations tend to reference previous versions. So, you try learning the new hotness (v261), but there are implied references to v254, v239, and v198. Then you realize, v1, v5, v48, v87, v138, v192, and v230 have cute identifiers that you aren't familiar with and are never explained anywhere. New concepts get introduced in v25, v50, v102, and v156 that later became foundational knowledge that is assumed to be understood by the reader and is never explained anywhere.
So, if you feel confident something will be the next hotness, it's usually best to be an early adopter, so you gain your knowledge slowly over years instead of having to cram when you need to pick it up.
The ones pushing this narrative have either the following:
* Invested in AI companies (which they will never disclose until they IPO / acquired)
* Employees at AI companies that have stock options which they are effectively paid boosters around AGI nonsense.
* Mid-life crisis / paranoia that their identity as a programmer is being eroded and have to pivot to AI.
It is no different to the crypto web3 bubble of 2021. This time, it is even more obvious and now the grifters from crypto / tech are already "pivoting to ai". [0]
> It is no different to the crypto web3 bubble of 2021
web3 didn't produce anything useful, just noise. I couldn't take a web3 stack to make an arbitrary app. with the PISS machine I can.
Do I worry about the future, fuck yeah I do. I think I'm up shit creek. I am lucky that I am good at describing in plain English what I want.
With AI companies still selling services far below cost, it's only a matter of time before the money runs out and the true value of these tools will be tested.
As someone who was at a large company that was dabbling in NFTs, there was no value apart from pure gambling. At the time that we were doing it, it was also too late, so it was just a jinormous
My issue with GenAI is the rampant copyright violation, and the effect it will have on the economy. Its also replacing all of the fun bits of the world that I inhabit.
At least with web3 it was mostly contained with in the BO infested basement that crypto bros inhabit. AI bollocks has infected half the world.
I don't think it's a coincidence that some of the best developers[1] are using these tools and some openly advocating for them because it still requires core skills to get the most out of them
I can honestly say that building end-to-end products with claude code has made me a better developer, product designer, tester, code reviewer, systems architect, project manager, sysadmin etc. I've learned more in the past ~year than I ever have in my career.
[0] abandoned cursor late last year
[1] see Linus using antigravity, antirez in OP, Jared at bun, Charlie at uv/ruff, mitushiko, simonw et al
(I had been using GitHub Copilot for 5+ years already, started as an early beta tested, but I don’t really consider that the same)
I like to say it’s like learning a programming language. it takes time, but you start pattern matching and knowing what works. it took me multiple attempts and a good amount of time to learn Rust, learning effective use of these tools is similar
I’ve also learned a ton across domains I otherwise wouldn’t have touched
Replace that with anything and you will notice that people who are building startups in this area will want to bring the narrative like that as it usually highly increases the value of their companies. When narrative gets big enough, then big companies must follow - or they look like "lagging behind". Whether the current thing brings value or not. It is a fire that keeps feeding itself. In the end, when it gets big enough - we call it as bubble. Bubble that may explode. Or not.
Whether the end user gets actual value or not, is just side effect. But everyone wants to believe that that it brings value - otherwise they were foolish to jump in the train.
For now i think people can still catch up quickly, but at the end of 2026 it's probably going to be a different story.
Ah yes, an ecosystem that is fundamentally inherently built on probabilisitic quick sand and even with the "best prompting practices", you still get agents violating the basics of security and committing API keys when they were told not to. [0]
Design your secrets to include a common prefix, then use deterministic scanning tools like git hooks to prevent then from being checked in.
Or have a git hook that knows which environment variables have secrets in and checks for those.
For example, what if your code (that the LLM hasn't reviewed yet) has a dumb feature in where it dumps environment variables to log output, and the LLM runs "./server --log debug-issue-144.log" and commits that log file as part of a larger piece of work you ask it to perform.
If you don't want a bad thing to happen, adding a deterministic check that prevents the bad thing to happen is a better strategy than prompting models or hoping that they'll get "smarter" in the future.
Some of this negativity I think is due to unrealistic expectations of perfection.
Use the same guardrails you should be using already for human generated code and you should be fine.
CPUs are billions of transistors. sometimes one fails and things still work. “probabilistic quicksand” isn’t the dig you think it is to people who know how this stuff works
"Trust only me bro".
It takes 10 seconds to see the many examples of API keys + prompts on GitHub to verify that tweet. The issue with AI isn't limited to that tweet which demonstrates its probabilistic nature; Otherwise why do need a sandbox to run the agent in the first place?
Nevermind, we know why: Many [0] such [1] cases [2]
> CPUs are billions of transistors. sometimes one fails and things still work. “probabilistic quicksand” isn’t the dig you think it is to people who know how this stuff works
Except you just made a false equivalence. CPUs can be tested / verified transparently and even if it does go wrong, we know exactly why. Where as you can't explain why the LLM hallucinated or decided to delete your home folder because the way it predicts what it outputs is fundamentally stochastic.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1pgxckk/claude_cl...
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1jfidvb/claude_tr...
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=ai+deleted+files+site%3Anews...
my point is more “skill issue” than “trust me this never happens”
my point on CPUs is people who don’t understand LLMs talk like “hallucinations” are a real thing — LLMs are “deciding” to make stuff up rather than just predicting the next token. yes it’s probabilistic, so is practically everything else at scale. yet it works and here we are. can you really explain in detail how everything you use works? I’m guessing I can explain failure modes of agentic systems (and how to avoid them so you don’t look silly on twitter/github) and how neural networks work better than most people can explain the technology they use every day
That doesn't refute the probabilistic nature of LLMs despite best prompting practices. In fact it emphasises it. More like your 1 anecdotal example vs my 20+ examples on GitHub.
My point tells you that not only it indeed does happen, but a previous old issue is now made even worse and more widespread, since we now have vibe-coders without security best practices assuming the agent should know better (when it doesn't).
> my point is more “skill issue” than “trust me this never happens”
So those that have this "skill issue" are also those who are prompting the AI differently then? Either way, this just inadvertently proves my whole point.
> yes it’s probabilistic, so is practically everything else at scale. yet it works and here we are.
The additional problem is can you explain why it went wrong as you scale the technology? CPUs circuit design go through formal verification and if a fault happens, we know exactly why; hence it is deterministic in design which makes them reliable.
LLMs are not and don't have this. Which is why OpenAI had to describe ChatGPT's misaligned behaviour as "sycophancy", but could not explain why it happened other than tweaking the hyper-parameters which got them that result.
So LLMs being fundamentally probabilistic and are hence, more unexplainable being the reason why you have the screenshot of vibe-coders who somehow prompted it wrong and the agent committed the keys.
Maybe that would never have happened to you, but it won't be the last time we see more of this happening on GitHub.
yes AI makes leaking keys on GH more prevalent, but so what? it’s the same problem as before with roughly the same solution
I’m saying neural networks being probabilistic doesn’t matter — everything is probabilistic. you can still practically use the tools to great effect, just like we use everything else that has underlying probabilities
OpenAI did not have to describe it as sycophancy, they chose to, and I’d contend it was a stupid choice
and yes, you can explain what went wrong just like you can with CPUs. we don’t (usually) talk about quantum-level physics when discussing CPUs; talking about neurons in LLMs is the wrong level of abstraction
Verses your anecdote being a proof of what? Skill issue for vibe coders? Someone else prompting it wrong?
You do realize you are proving my entire point?
> yes AI makes leaking keys on GH more prevalent, but so what? it’s the same problem as before with roughly the same solution
Again, it exacerbates my point such that it makes the existing issue even worse. Additionally, that wasn't even the only point I made on the subject.
> I’m saying neural networks being probabilistic doesn’t matter — everything is probabilistic.
When you scale neural networks to become say, production-grade LLMs, then it does matter. Just like it does matter for CPUs to be reliable when you scale them in production-grade data centers.
But your earlier (fallacious) comparison ignores the reliability differences between them (CPUs vs LLMs.) and determinism is a hard requirement for that; which the latter, LLMs are not.
> OpenAI did not have to describe it as sycophancy, they chose to, and I’d contend it was a stupid choice
For the press, they had to, but no-one knows the real reason, because it is unexplainable; going back to my other point on reliability.
> and yes, you can explain what went wrong just like you can with CPUs. we don’t (usually) talk about quantum-level physics when discussing CPUs; talking about neurons in LLMs is the wrong level of abstraction
It is indeed wrong for LLMs because not even the researchers can practically give an explanation why a single neuron (for every neuron in the network) gives different values on every fine-tune or training run. Even if it is "good enough", it can still go wrong at the inference-level for other unexplainable reasons other than it "overfitted".
CPUs on the other hand, have formal verification methods which verify that the CPU conforms to its specification and we can trust that it works as intended and can diagnose the problem accurately without going into atomic-level details.
> I’m saying it doesn’t matter it’s probabilistic, everything is,
Maybe it doesn't matter for you, but it generally does matter.
The risk level of a technology failing is far higher if it is more random and unexplainable than if it is expected, verified and explainable. The former eliminates many serious use-cases.
This is why your CPU, or GPU works.
LLMs are neither deterministic, no formal verification exists and are fundamentally black-boxes.
That is why many vibe-coders reported many "AI deleted their entire home folder" issues even when they told it to move a file / folder to another location.
If it did not matter, why do you need sandboxes for the agents in the first place?
very little software (or hardware) used in production is formally verified. tons of non-deterministic software (including neural networks) are operating in production just fine, including in heavily regulated sectors (banking, health care)
No.
> very little software (or hardware) used in production is formally verified. tons of non-deterministic software (including neural networks) are operating in production just fine, including in heavily regulated sectors (banking, health care)
It's what happens when it all goes wrong.
You have to explain exactly why, a system failed in heavily regulated sectors.
Saying 'everything is probabilistic' as the reason for the cause of an issue, is a non answer if you are a chip designer, air traffic controller, investment banker or medical doctor.
So your point does not follow.
I have repeated myself many times and you decide to continue to ignore the reliability points that inherently impede LLMs in many use-cases which exclude them in areas where predictability in critical systems is required in production.
Vibe coders can use them, but the gulf between useful for prototyping and useful for production is riddled with hard obstacles as such a software like LLMs are fundamentally unpredictable hence the risks are far greater.
> I’m saying these non-deterministic neural networks are already widespread in industry with these regulations, and it’s fine.
So when a neural network scales beyond hundreds of layers and billions of parameters, equivalent to a production-grade LLM, explain exactly how is such a black-box on that scale explainable when it messes up and goes wrong?
> they can be explained despite your repeated assertions they cannot be.
With what methods exactly?
Early on, I said formal verification and testing on CPUs for explaining when they go wrong at scale. It is you that provided absolutely nothing of your own assertions with the equivalent for LLMs other than "they can be explained" without providing any evidence.
> also the entire point on CPUs which you may have noticed I dropped from my responses because you seemed distracted arguing about it). this is not productive and we’re both clearly stubborn, glhf
You did not make any point with that as it was a false equivalence, and I explained why the reliability of a CPU isn't the same as the reliability of a LLM.
Can you elaborate? Skill in AI use will be a differentiator?
At some point you will need to combine multiple skills together:
- communication
- engineering skills (understanding requirements, finding edge cases, etc)
- architectural proficiency
- prompting
- agentic workflows and skills
- context management
- and yes, proper old fashioned coding skills to keep things tidy and consistent