[kiratp]

The productivity boost can be so massive that this amount of fiddling to control costs is counterproductive.

Developers tend to seriously underestimate the opportunity cost of their own time.

Hint - it’s many multiples of your total compensation broken down to 40 hour work weeks.

[Aurornis]

The cost of the task scales with how long it takes, plus or minus.

Substitute “cost” with “time” in the above post and all of the same tips are still valuable.

I don’t do much agentic LLM coding but the speed (or lack thereof) was one of my least favorite parts. Using any tricks that narrow scope, prevent reprocessing files over and over again, or searching through the codebase are all helpful even if you don’t care about the dollar amount.

[pizza]

Hard agree. Whether it's 50 cents or 10 dollars per session, I'm using it to get work done for the sake of quickly completing work that aims to unblock many orders of magnitude more value. But in so far as cheaper correct sessions correlate with sessions where the problem solving was more efficient anyhow, they're fairly solid tips.

[afiodorov]

I agree but optimisation often reveals implementation details helping to understand limits of current tech more. It might not be worth the time but part of engineering is optimisation and another part is deep understanding of tech. It is sometimes worth optimising anyway if you want to take the engineering discipline to the next level within yourself.

I myself didn’t think about not running linters however it makes obvious sense now and gives me the insight about how Claude Code works allowing me to use this insight in related engineering work.

[jillesvangurp]

Exactly. I've been using the chat gpt desktop app not because of the model quality but because of the UX. It basically seamlessly integrates with my IDEs (intellij and vs code). Mostly I just do stuff like select a few lines, hit option+shift+1, and say something like "fix this". Nice short prompt and I get the answer relatively quickly. Option+shift+1 opens chat gpt with the open file already added to the context. It sees what lines are selected. And it also sees the output of any test runs on the consoles. So just me saying "fix this" now has a rich context that I don't need to micromanage.

Mostly I just use the 4o model instead of the newer better models because it is faster. It's good enough mostly and I prefer getting a good enough answer quickly than the perfect answer after a few minutes. Mostly what I ask is not rocket science so perfect is the enemy of good here. I rarely have to escalate to better models. The reasoning models are annoyingly slow. Especially when they go down the wrong track, which happens a lot.

And my cost is a predictable 20$/month. The downside is that the scope of what I can ask is more limited. I'd like it to be able to "see" my whole code base instead of just 1 file and for me to not have to micro manage what the model looks at. Claude can do that if you don't care about money. But if you do, you are basically micro managing context. That sounds like monkey work that somebody should automate. And it shouldn't require an Einstein sized artificial brain to do that.

There must be people that are experimenting with using locally running more limited AI models to do all the micromanaging that then escalate to remote models as needed. That's more or less what Apple pitched for Apple AI at some point. Sounds like a good path forward. I'd be curious to learn about coding tools that do something like that.

In terms of cost, I don't actually think it's unreasonable to spend a few hundred dollars per month on this stuff. But I question the added value over the 20$ I'm spending. I don't think the improvement is 20x better. more like 1.5x. And I don't like the unpredictability of this and having to think about how expensive a question is going to be.

I think a lot of the short term improvement is going to be a mix of UX and predictable cost. Currently the tools are still very clunky and a bit dumb. The competition is going to be about predictable speed, cost and quality. There's a lot of room for improvement here.

[charlie0]

If this is true, why isn't our compensation scaling with the increases in productivity?

[lazzlazzlazz]

It usually does, just with a time delay and a strict condition that the firm you work at can actually commercialize your productivity. Apply your systems thinking skills to compensation and it will all make sense.