[kscarlet]

The line right after this is much worse:

> Coding performed by AI is at a world-class level, something that wasn’t so just a year ago.

Wow, finance people certainly don't understand programming.

[mcv]

World class? Then what am I? I frequently work with Copilot and Claude Sonnet, and it can be useful, but trusting it to write code for anything moderately complicated is a bad idea. I am impressed by its ability to generate and analyse code, but its code almost never works the first time, unless it's trivial boilerplate stuff, and its analysis is wrong half the time.

It's very useful if you have the knowledge and experience to tell when it's wrong. That is the absolutely vital skill to work with these systems. In the right circumstances, they can work miracles in a very short time. But if they're wrong, they can easily waste hours or more following the wrong track.

It's fast, it's very well-read, and it's sometimes correct. That's my analysis of it.

[malfist]

Is this why AI is telling us our every idea is brilliant and great? Because their code doesn't stand up to what we can do?

[AmericanOP]

Whichever PM sold glazing as a core feature should be ejected into space.

[RHSman2]

Because people who can’t code but now can have zero understanding of the ‘path to production quality code’

Of course it is mind blowing for them.

[formerly_proven]

Copilot is easily the worst (and probably slowest) coding agent. SOTA and Copilot don't even inhabit similar planes of existence.

[RobinL]

I've found Opus 4.5 in copilot to be very impressive. Better than codex CLI in my experience. I agree Copilot definitely used to be absolutely awful.

[whimsicalism]

cursor is better than both, i wish this weren’t the case tbph

[skydhash]

> I frequently work with Copilot and Claude Sonnet, and it can be useful, but trusting it to write code for anything moderately complicated is a bad idea

This sentence and the rest of the post reads like an horoscope advice. Like "It can be good if you use it well, it may be bad if you don't". It's pretty much the same as saying a coin may land on head or on tail.

[hatthew]

saying "a coin may land on head or on tail" is useful when other people are saying "we will soon have coins that always land on heads"

[bdangubic]

this is doable, you just have to rig the coin

[selectodude]

They don’t. I’ve gone from rickety and slow excel sheets and maybe some python functions to automate small things that I can figure out to building out entire data pipelines. It’s incredible how much more efficient we’ve gotten.

[clickety_clack]

Ask ChatGPT “is AI programming world class?”

[sshadmand]

Finance people are funny. They are so wrong when you hear their logic and references, but I also realized it doesn't matter. It is trends they try to predict, fuzzy directional signals, not facts of the moment.

[venturecruelty]

Of course not, why would they? They understand making money, and what makes money right now? What would be antithetical to making money? Why might we be doing one thing and not another? The lines are bright and red and flashing.