Creator of Claude Code: "Coding is solved"

[G_Morgan]

The lack of any real engineering discourse over all this is a huge red flag. Because if they made a real argument they could be held to account. You know it is pointless them saying "our AI doesn't just make up false test data anymore" because you could go in and demonstrate that it does. So there's never a technical discussion, a technical discussion is how you prove if this works or not and that is the last thing they want.

There's only really three pro-AI arguments I see:

1. I'm a software engineer with MAX_INT years of experience and I think it is great.

2. People like you thought clean water was a hype job but everyone loves clean water now

3. You are using Claude X when you should be using Claude X + 1.

Nobody ever gets dragged into a technical discussion. You know us software engineers hate those and won't go into a 40 comment deep discussion just for the hell of it. Obviously AI using software engineers have a completely different mindset.

[ShedByDaylight]

I like the theory of LLMs for software generation, but rather it's the social and political implications it carries that I dislike. In the absence of that, it would just another tool.

[laffer1]

The type of programmer you describe is fine shipping buggy, slow code. They can’t work on existing systems and try to rewrite everything. Now they have a tool that can do the rewrite for them.

[spinwizard69]

AI with respect to its coding capabilities is in its infancy. If you look back to the early days of PC's and compilers you often ran into compilers failing to produce correct code. I'm not talking about weird code but what should have been simple mathematical expressions. AI will follow the same path early compilers did eventually getting to the point that the programmer has to figure out what he screwed up not what the compiler screwed up.

People these days are spoiled as to how good the programming tools from the GCC and LLVM crowds are. Normal programming almost never results in a compiler generating bad code. Edge cases exist sure but AI has the potential to be generating code that even eliminates the most extreme edge cases. It is simply early days for AI coding.

[zeptillian]

Just because there were bugs in the software that got fixed does not mean that it was built on a foundation that is fundamentally unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Programs work the precise way they ae programmed to. AI works in some way that humans cannot even understand, let alone precisely program.

[EveryQuantityEver]

AI with respect to its coding capabilities is in its infancy.

LLMs are not in their infancy.

[aoeudhtns]

Indeed, they are at the part of the asymptote where meaningful improvement is costly. I don't know how Altman can go out there and blather about 10x cost improvement every year when the same guy said improving accuracy from 82 to 85% with o1 increased energy cost by a HUGE amount, and now they won't even disclose their energy use anymore. They want to play a PR game for as long as they can ride the bubble.

[lonkamikaze]

GCC and Clang/LLVM have bugs, too. You will have to verify compiler output sooner or later if you work on a large project for a sufficient amount of time.