[weakfish]

Reading comments like this is like watching someone who is absolutely convinced that they have a crystal ball in their lap when at best they have a foggy piece of plastic. You could be right you could be wrong, but don’t act like you have such certainty.

[CamperBob2]

The foggy piece of plastic writes better code and better text than I do. I don't know about you, but that makes me sit up and stop waving my hands dismissively.

As for "certainty," that's a luxury nobody has.

[weakfish]

I really don't want to sound like an asshole, but I refuse the notion that an agent writes better code / prose than I do and I am concerned for anyone who does think that.

Is it _faster_? sure! That is NOT better.

Before you ask, I write code w/ agents daily, I find it useful, but it's not better than I am purely on quality.

[CamperBob2]

What I've been seeing lately with Opus 4.7 under Claude Code is that it finds more bugs in my code than I find in its code. That, to me, makes it hard to argue that I am "better" than it is.

Certainly Claude/Codex's knowledge of algorithms and data structures is leagues ahead of any human programmer alive. Only its capacity for creating new ones on demand is weaker. Recent results from the mathematics field suggest that's a temporary state of affairs.

As far as prose goes, my best writing is indeed better than the best I've seen from LLMs. But that's a matter of opinion (mine.) On average the clanker wins, especially if conditioned to avoid LLM-isms.

The truth is that the models are getting better in both areas, while I'm not. Which IMHO is freaking awesome, not a reason to burn it all down.

[weakfish]

I think it's pretty good at review and finding bugs, but IME it's really not great at designing solutions to non-trivial problems, which IME is the part of the job that makes me "good" at it. YMMV