He heavily leans on developers for his points on coding, and then spices it up.
> For example, major media outlets will gladly write that “AI can build software,” but said sentence suggests that you can just type “build me Slack 2” into Claude and have it fart out a fully-functional, production-ready piece of software, rather than a quasi-functional mound of code-slop that can do enough to trick a business idiot or lazy journalist, but little else.
Here is the latest point he made on development and that seems accurate to me? If a non-technical person hands AI an under-specified prompt you get quasi-functional slop.
Can you link the piece where he says it's only relevant for small hobby projects?
I'm not a huge fan of his or anything but your comment is just.. pulling stuff completely out of no-where.
around 9:30
"this is a thing that has its use for the little things, but the moment you start expanding it"
This is just plain wrong. We deal with codebases in double digit millions LOCs with models - it takes genuine skills and instrumentation to do right, but it does work. And I know devs who take this view - that AI is dumb, useless, a gimmick - and what they have in common is they have not tried to put in the hours to learn how to tame the beast.
Anyway, I am losing interest in debating the topic, the efficient markets will deal with this objectively. I can't see how a company employing the usual high-low mix of developers can compete with a company that has a small number of elite devs equipped with those tools and unencumbered by having to manage large development teams and associated bureaucracies. Time will tell.
You can't just take one sentence out of context. Huh?
"...you're just kicking the can. You're still going to have to read all this code to make sure it makes sense"
He's commenting on that maybe it's not a huge productivity boost once you include the reviewing- if you want to get good results you have to know what you're doing, direct it, review it. If you skip this, you get aimless slop.
How on earth is this "plain wrong"?
> the efficient markets will deal with this objectively
> sentence suggests that you can just type “build me Slack 2” into Claude and have it fart out a fully-functional, production-ready piece of software, rather than a quasi-functional mound of code-slop
How's that different from randomly selected human developer team? Other than price, time and hr. Most software project always failed for a reason.
That's normal in sense of being a practical outcome of most software development projects.
The truth is, software development process always produced mostly garbage. Looking at only successful projects and saying "see? that's what humans do, completely unlike AI" is a bucket of survivorship bias.