[Bukhmanizer]

I think a lot of the discourse around LLMs fails because of organizational differences.

I work in science, and I’ve recently worked with a couple projects where they generated >20,000 LOC before even understanding what the project was supposed to be doing. All the scientists hated it and it didn’t do anything that it was supposed to. But I still felt like I was being “anti-ai” when criticizing it.

I understand that it’s way better when you deeply understand the problem and field though.

[Rapzid]

I'm starting to see this. It starting to seem like a lot of the people making the most specious, yet wild AI SLDC claims are:

* Hobbyist or people engaged in hobby and personal projects

* Startup bros; often pre-funding and pre-team

* Consultancies selling an AI SDLC as that wasn't even possible 6 months ago as "the way; proven, facts!"

It's getting to the point I'd like people to disclose the size of the team and org they are applying these processes at LOL.

[Bukhmanizer]

The rule of thumb I have in my head right now is that AI will benefit people with deep specialized knowledge a lot, but people with shallow knowledge or skills can’t build anything that your average SWE with a Claude code subscription can’t replicate in a few hours.

Most LinkedIn influencers, startup bros and consultancies kind of fall into the latter.