I read this a lot and it is just very foreign to me. I use AI systems in software work all day seven days a week and my job has become simultaneously more interesting and more difficult because I scale the ambition up until it's hard again.

Isn't anything else a surrender to irrelevance? I agree that many coding tasks that were previously effort intensive are now not effort intensive, but there's no ceiling I'm aware of on how correct and performant and economical and capable software can be short of saturating the hardware.

And the emergence of agentic intelligence at scale demands new regimes of performance and correctness and economy like maybe nothing else ever has.

I have an anecdote related to TUI flickering in that my TUI library had a flickering problem because it was doing more than 10k FPS, and so I had to lock the buffer swap to the vsync to stop it tearing.

AI coding didn't make more React too cheap to meter, it made notcurses bound into Trinity-inspired deterministic replay event substrate over io_uring possible.

https://youtu.be/YqgEtpJ8tGI?feature=shared

> A lot of you don't want to hear it but this is a user issue.

Hmm people say this all the time in these discussions but idk if I buy that it's really a "user issue". It's really, really not hard to "use" agentic ai. It literally involves instructing an llm to do things in natural language. Anyone who knows how to code and speak a language can do this. As you yourself seem to believe, even people who don't know how to code can do this. I just don't think it's possible that THAT many people are having an issue typing some words to instruct an llm to write some code. Maybe the issue is more the type of software you are working on vs the type of software that other people are working on. I don't know, I just don't think "skill issue" is really a valid argument here...

Edit: for the record, I think what Opus can produce is extremely impressive. But I still am not really close to letting write 100% of code I write. And I think that is true for a lot of people, not just me. It still generates (sometimes obvious) bugs. Until that stops, the statement "coding is solved" is objectively false, which (I think?) is largely the point of the video.

He's discussing Anthropic struggling to fix an issue with their own product. He's not the one struggling.

This guy has been against AI from the very onset, and no matter what happens with AI going forward I think he'll always poopoo it.

You have planning docs?

I am in no way surprised a sufficient waterfall method passed to Claude code could result in a completely accurate application. But most applications aren’t built via waterfall for all the reasons.

Also agents are just loops. So if you use Claude Code you are doing. Everything with a loop. So I do believe him but it’s a weird flex.

If Anthropic has some of the best and most highly paid software engineers on the planet working on a simple program (terminal app) with virtually unlimited tokens for the strongest coding model, and they still ship a sloppy buggy mess, what does that say about the quality of code you are outputting?

A lot of you don't want to hear it, but you aren't doing better than Anthropic so unless your use case is ridiculously simple, Claude Code is the ceiling for what you're creating, and if what you're doing is at all complex, the ceiling is much much lower.

Sorry, but context rot is real, and I’d be curious how your code is playing out in the real world. Is it shipping? Is it a known product with stable docs? Is it greenfield?

Aspects of coding are faster certainly, but oh gosh can it get very wrong very fast when things go sideways, and with everyone using it, the chaos factor compounds into a near halt.

Can you give me your use case here? I have not gotten around to trying loops in Claude code but have started to notice the hype.

> just handing off planning docs to Claude or GPT and they implement it with like 95% accuracy.

Do you have any publicly available demonstrations of this claim?

> A lot of you don't want to hear it

That there are skill differences in the use of technology? On the contrary this knowledge makes me suspicious of undocumented claims like yours.

> this is a user issue.

Another claim I wish was quantified. With all the billions invested I assumed this would naturally come to exist. I may have just missed it. Any pointers?

I am definitely hyped on it and have 10-20 Codex and Claude Code terminals open, but I do wonder what you're building and with who that you would say 95% accuracy. I get so frustrated with Codex inventing new ways to do something every time it compacts or start a new session.

"You're right, I shouldn't have done that" Ya think?!

Yup. The only caveat I'd add is that I'm using an alternate account to agree with people who say that AI coding has been amazing, because there is a seemingly a good chunk of people who dislike it and it will be met with downvotes. Also because my real account has my real name in the profile along with projects I work on, and a simple search could reveal my pro-AI coding views and these same folks who downvote could also be a future interviewer.

I think the world changed. And it's changed for the good. AI is a tool, and we should not be afraid of this tool for the coding world. I am only speaking about coding, I'm not speaking about other uses of AI, just so that we're clear on the scope of what I mean by good change.

For the first time, I see people who had all these ideas finally bring them to reality and watch it blossom. They wanted to build something to share with their communities, but the walls were too high. Too much gatekeeping. Too much of thinking that programming was a task for the elite few and not for the masses. Along the way, we all forgot that we build tools for people. And having an additional tool help us make better tools for people is a win. Just below this comment, I see people talking about dementia, "lots more generated code, almost all of it garbage", "future where garbage software".

I think the only delusional ones are the idea that humans were better at coding. Have you never had to work on an older project? One that you did not have to start fresh on? Or did you come into either one and go "wow, this is perfect! everything is so beautiful!" Do you seriously consider your fresh project (that didn't use AI) to be the best most perfect beautiful code ever?

The fact is that nobody cares. People want to use good things and have fun with their lives. They're not worried about whether you wrote a method that parses some strings beautifully or did it with a one-liner. That never mattered, and I think a lot of you can't let go of that world view change and instead lash out at people who simply embrace that programming was simply a tool, not some elite special skill. And we're going back to those beliefs. It's done. It's over. Get over it.

Please please tell us so we're prepared. sad puppy eyes

Customers abandon companies that fail.

Remember how they used Brando to water plants and it kills them? Eventually mistakes break critical systems and you fail.

Ignorance is too generous a word. This is epistemic collapse.

Perhaps, but people don't care that much about a bug with Instagram. Once critical infrastructure starts failing people will take notice.

The pralaya is not far away. Soon Shiva will begin his dance. I give us until 2036.

No, we'll just find harder problems.... Coding is boring now

Isaac Asimov, but yes.

I write little bits of code then test them. If the screen flickers i wouldnt continue until it is solved. If ive missed it and have to hear it from (a) user(s) i would kinda like to fix it imediately. Not always possible but truly annoying things have priority over new things.

If i had unlimited developers at my command. All many times as fast as me.... how can i keep the problem? It would take some huge effort to keep.

The unlimited number of devs would talk about it an unlimited number of times. Not fixing it would be very expensive that way.

He spent that much time and you still misunderstood the direct message and missed the subtext.

The lie is coding is solved, the proof is they had an outstanding coding issue they were working on for over a year while saying coding is solved. There’s a great number of other issues with their own software that disprove their premise, but you only need one counter example to disprove something.

And because you missed it, the subtext was they want you to use loops not because they work but because they burn lots of tokens thus making them more money.