I know milenimals who know how everything works but only check messages every 2 weeks and dont answer if anyone calls. Might play a game once per month, might watch one movie per week.
One guy boots up his pc, looks at one website, closes the tab, closes the browser, shuts down the pc and switches the monitor off. I have to admit the technology looks terrible if used like that.
At work i only had early copilot which was hysterically bad at everything. As i wanted it to do the same task repeatedly and could spot wrong results instantly i kept evolving a prompt that attempted to correct all ways it found to do it wrong. It kept inventing new ways to get it wrong until it eventually got it right 90% of the time. My theory is that an avanced model that has no issues with a task could do the prompt enginering much better than i ever could. You could for example run x different queries that all do the same thing and compare the results y times. If there are >1 correct results and the wrong versions are all unique you should be able to drill down to a valid result with even a truly shit model running on a potato. Basically what humans do.
Early Copilot was tab-complete in editors and was honestly the best version of LLM-assisted development I've used, because it was intentionally small in scope, trivial to verify output from at a glance and easy to opt in and opt out of. I have yet to see anything more useful in terms of code generation; very small-scale code generation (think function-level) comes close, but is a lot more tedious.
For analysis, bug hunting, overview and some porting work to popular languages and so on I think the current SotA is fantastic, but they're still very disappointing for code generation past function or small module level.
> "I have yet to see anything more useful in terms of code generation"
Recently my employer hooked Claude into a bunch of SaaS services like a ticketing system and an asset inventory system, and I feel a big productivity boost is that I don't have to dig for their open browser tabs, remember their product name/URL/where I put the bookmark, find that my sessions have logged me out "for my protection" since I last looked, find my MFA code, approve sign-in on my phone, then use their mismashed/sluggish/poor-UX interfaces and slow searches to loko for things, and can instead ask Claude "search these systems for anything about <issue>" and it just does. It correlates between systems, summarizes things, and gives me references which system and where to look to check what it found. Internal search on a mess of acquired and disjoint systems.
This feeling reminds me of two classic Joel Spolsky blog posts below, and your comment here about the surprisingly useful tab-complete gives me a similar feeling. I wonder how many smaller candidates there are where LLMs are more helpful and less hyped, against the big vibe-coding solve-everything hype which are currently less helpful than their hype?
References [1]: "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it’s not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we’ve had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. [...] Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they’re probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it. Sidebar: Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction"
and [2]: "I have seen many language and programming fads come and go. But there’s only ONE, that’s right, ONE language feature I’ve ever seen that actually improves your productivity significantly. No, it’s not object oriented programming; no, it’s not intentional programming or assertions or programming by example or CASE or UML or XML or Java. The only thing that improves your programming productivity is using managed code – that is, using a language in which memory management is automatic."
we could have had that before, but in past era of tech companies, APIs were not designed with an individual needs in mind and management was all too happy to order you to update status (manually) across JIRA, Slack and whatever other tracking system they were using.
I think this sounds fantastic, and I welcome all developments in these types of areas where you lean heavily on the hyper-attentive, very fast assistant aspect of LLMs intended to make information more easily searchable, visible and the results more accurate.
I agree that the mismatch between the expectations of OOP as a paradigm and this situation right now feel very similar. I suppose the many billions pumped into selling vibecoding and large-scale code generation via LLMs of other kinds is sort of like the massive amount of money pumped into marketing Java as a viable alternative long before it actually was.
Just like with human langages their only advantage is the community around it, the culture. (Im pretending size is a part of that Obj) No one does it but that is how you should pick it.
I've done this. Ask Claude to permutate a prompt and run Claude Code or a subagent to observe effects until success. Claude will iterate on the prompt faster than I could and likely catch more edge cases, too. It's one of those tasks where the end goal is very clear and the agent just needs to iterate on permutations. Arguably this is a perfect match, too, because prompt engineering is really just text generation, so why not have a text generation machine do it.
Trying until you find something that doesn’t fail is the model used throughout evolution & engineering, think of bridges collapsed, airplanes falling from the sky or exploded steam locomotives.
In engineering you learn from these mistakes and try never making them again. Do we want to go through this evolution every time we solve a software issue? Just because we can with an unlimited number of cheap tokens? I think not, I’d rather use the knowledge build up that also knows about the edge cases forgotten to test. Or better, use multiple models that evaluate each other, as Entropic describes it in their recent report https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49316271
> We expect that agents coordinating in the wild will act in higher variance ways than we see here, because they’ll have different backgrounds and therefore different contexts. They also, presumably, won’t all be Claudes.
Yes! As long as you have some criteria to judge the final answer, you can do a kind of "prompt-side RLVR", where you have the model generate prompt changes, try a bunch of different prompts and see which ones improve the results.
You don't necessarily need a bigger model to do this.
Now that you mention sleeping. I imagine one could do cool sleeping startups that clone something but exist only on paper. The sleeper startup is only launched the moment some ham fisted mega corp aquires the original and all the customers are looking for a way to abandon ship.
Depends who does it. If someone with the track record and budget pulls the rabbit out of the hat swiftly existing customers would at least investigate.
If you maintain a list of shortcommings or good new features it could sound like a sweet deal.
If the company was aquired to shut it down it would work even better.
Marketing is increasingly expensive. Any hype is valuable. One might as well design the product for the promotion.
The 8 hour work day was quite a victory but since it happened long ago i would really like to see how health and productivity in each occupation declines over time and by task. I expect not just the obvious jobs to have quite absurd numbers and vary a lot from person to person. One might imagine a gradually increasing hourly rate, a decreasing one or a combination of the two. Writing code i could probably do 2x an hour per day. Much respect for those who can do full days. If we imagine there to be roughly 500 defined occupations it seems quite doable to measure how "easy" coding really is.
I was once impressed by a very crappy cut, a lengthy marinade with a lot of vinegar, a rins and a extremely sweet saus. The meat was very red and was as soft as bread.
reply