> And all I did was type into a terminal for 20 minutes

Well, and learning how to do that in 20 minutes

That would be fun. Could over time round roughly to charging everyone to fund the use of GitHub Copilot to work on open source.

> Every single time [...] I end up rewriting about 70% of the thing

If that number has not significantly changed since GPT 3.5, I think it's safe to assume that something very weird is happening on your end.

I think I know what they mean, I share a similar experience. It has changed, 3.5 couldn't even attempt to solve non-trivial tasks so it was a 100% failure, now it's 70%.

There is no hard part. The anti-AI position has simply become trite. The idea is that agentic coding does not work. Today, it does work.

Some people are also opposed because of the negative externalities when building and running AI systems (environmental consequences, intellectual property theft), even if they understand that agentic coding "works". This is a valid position.

I have not seen those arguments in the context of what I would consider anti-hype. But in any case: There are certainly issues attached to usage of AI more generally.

It only works for languages and frameworks that are already in the training data (duh). It still is mostly useless when you need to create something from scratch in an unstable language.

That, and you can’t also get the amazing results if you’re poor or have bad internet.

Good thing almost all of programming falls into the former. Most of the economy runs on well defined languages. Billions and billions of dollars.

Not true. I built some tools in Hare, which almost certainly isn’t in the training data to any significant extent. It was more work than having it build Go or Rust, but it got it done. It had to curl the docs a fair bit.

Opus 4.5 and update your priors. This was certainly true >6months back and is no longer the case

We are using the latest stuff. Our experience is still not great.

Why do you guys always assume we don't as though the oldest models are easy to use accidentally

I have a feeling that the HN hypebeasts have a lot of overlap with the folks that previously used to copy/paste blindly from StackOverflow.

It’s an easy deflection. Dismiss any opinions because you’re using it wrong or not the latest.

Good for anything >= 1 month old.

Use other nonsense fear inducing argument in the mean time, continue gathering gobs of VC money, get your bag, continue till the bubble pops.

In all fairness, and putting hype and anti-hype aside, I’m really interested to see the actual value of LLM/agent services after the VC money subsidies dry out. Would people we willing to pay for services at 10x the current price?

I read the same exact thing 6 months ago.

Yeah bro thanks for the tip and few shillings to you good sir. I was here still using GPT 2 because they said GPT 3 might be too dangerous.

It works for some things, not everything.

I find it increasingly confusing that some people seem to believe, that other people not subjecting themselves to this continued interrogation, gives any credence to their position.

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.

> People seem to believe that there is a burden of proof. There is not. What do I care if you are on board?

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.

> What do I care if you are on board?

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.

> What do I care if you are on board?

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?

What is infinite about that (or any) war? Things always change and "just do/use x" consistently, eventually, does not win.

We have had the fabled 10x engineer long before and independent of agentic coding. Some people claim it's real, others claim it's not, with much the same conviction. If something, that should be so clear cut, is debatable, why would anyone now be able to produce a convincing, discussion-resolving argument for (or against) agentic coding? We don't even manage to do that for tab/spaces.

The reason why both can't be resolved in a forum like this, is that coding output is hard to reason about for various reasons and people want it to be hard to reason about.

I would like to encourage people to think that the burden of proof always falls on themselves, to themselves. Managing to not be convinced in an online forum (regardless of topic or where you land on the issue) is not hard.

I just saw nstummbillig shout racist remarks.

That is some serious glorification and misreading of the worst time in human history (the past).

Arguments for... somebody wanting to get paid for their work? What are you doing?

Normally you ask for payment upfront, not years after.

Who got asked to pay years after...? After what?

Best read: You are confusing different products. Somebody can do two things and get paid for only one of them.

Worst read: You are really trying to confuse them.

Nobody is asked for money years after they started using Tailwind. Nobody is being asked for money now, when they start using Tailwind.

So fork and offer your better free version. Holy fuck. What's with this persistent attitude that open source creators should slave away for free forever?

Either you support an economy where everyone gets a meager living wage just for existing and then once that's established you can complain about people trying to make money off open source, or you say "capitalism as it exists is great" and swallow the fact that people who you don't pay don't work for you. Which is it?

Please, just admit you're wrong. It's ok.

I think it's fairly sad that somebody feels this needs to be said.