sunaurus

Does this actually work for anybody? In my experience, when you use cheaper models as subagents, the more expensive parent agent ends up reading all of the subagent's work and surrounding code into context anyway to review it. So you end up paying more, not less.

How could AI possibly lead to communism?

If humans remain in control of it, then how can it possibly lead to anything other than extreme oligarchy?

The linked tweet about remote vs in-person is hilarious to me.

I've never witnessed anything else affect intensity in my teams as negatively as forced RTO did.

I mean of course it is fully dependent on personalities and roles, and totally anecdotal, but in my experience, work was certainly *much* more intense when people had conditions for deep focus. I was literally just thinking about how slow everything feels nowadays, with everybody struggling to get focus time in a crowded office full of distractions.

True. In human built applications, the problems really start manifesting when the original code owners/maintainers leave, effectively turning their work into legacy code.

But vibe coded projects are effectively instant legacy code, due to lack of real ownership. So it's kind of a bigger problem.

I don't think we have data yet on how it matters, all I know is that I am confused by the meme, as it does not match my experience.

> Whatever you come up with, give the agent instructions to not do that. Then audit the code to make sure it's not happening.

Yes, this is what I mean by saying you need to stay on top of the agents

> What makes it actually impossible?

A combination of wrong abstractions, lack of abstractions, assuming some key requirements were just implementation details and thus are safe to refactor, assuming some implementation details were key requirements and thus must be protected at all costs, etc etc.

In practical terms, it's just volume of code that is spread extremely wide, duplicated with subtle differences, and just organized extremely confusingly.

> This I have not seen. Do you have an example?

If you try to vibe code longer term projects, you very often start getting completely nonsensical explanations from agents about why they are doing things. They reference requirements which are not real (based on what they interpret from the messy code), they write thousands of test cases that are redundant, or test things which are implementation details. Eventually even trivial changes become extremely slow due to lack of structure, due to fresh agents being confused by contradictions introduced by previous sessions, and due to test suites that take hours to run.

I hear this meme of "Opus writes better code than me" repeated a lot. I am absolutely baffled by it.

I use all the latest and greatest Anthropic (and OpenAI) models, and interact with them probably on average 10h a day. I experiment with changing effort levels, with different ways of prompting and guardrailing, etc. Giving more instructions, giving less instructions. Doing heavy planning, just giving vague ideas.

I've done everything from fully vibe coding massive projects, to using LLMs regularly in my day job and reviewing every single line they produce.

Unless you are *really* on top of your agents, they inevitably end up writing an absolute mess. Not only does the code become impossible for humans to reason about very quickly, it actually becomes difficult for agents to reason about it. It turns into a total garbage in = garbage out situation.

Have you honestly reviewed a vibe coded project after it has been going for a while, even one written by current SOTA models, and thought "yep, this is great code"?

> We are in fact seeing software improvement, in the form of fewer bugs and better performance.

Anecdotally, completely disagree. Maybe this is nostalgia, but I perceive a distinct and massive drop in software quality over the past few years.

Worst offenders for me are the poster children for LLM-based development. I run into bugs and performance issues with both Claude and Codex literally every day. I don't think I'm an outlier here, either.

I mean the fact that it's not available in the EU is a pretty big tell

> which way depends on who controls the models.

Or if it's even possible to control the models.

Do you have any hypothesis for why this experience is so consistently reported by users (anecdotally)? Seemingly across all providers.

Sure, but my IDE does these simple things very well.

Just some important things off the top of my head that I use daily:

* Instantly jumping between definitions and usages

* Folding and unfolding code blocks

* Quick overview of structures in files

* Database access, so I can browse the data and the code at the same time

Also, sometimes I just want to quickly refactor/rename some variable across all its usages or whatever. It's just quicker to do it in the IDE with a simple keyboard shortcut, rather than prompting an agent "rename oldName to newName".

I'm realizing I am a minority, but my IDE is becoming MORE valuable to me, not less, with LLMs.

The volume of code is only increasing. Problems that used to be solved with a few lines (or even removing lines) are now solved with changes across 10 different files.

My IDE is invaluable for me when trying to navigate this stuff. I am completely convinced that people reviewing LLM code only via PR diffs are consistently missing massive systemic issues. You *need* to review changes in context of the surrounding code.

And doing this without an IDE is just making your life harder for no reason.

I just want to clarify for others reading that the resolution is really mainly limited by your PC hardware, NOT VR headsets.

As in, it's totally possible to have completely clear text on DCS screens and labels even with an older lower res headset like the Valve Index, as long as you render the game at a sufficiently high resolution (via SteamVR settings or similar).

Just wanted to point this out, since a lot of folks aren't aware how drastically increasing the render resolution (even far past the native HMD panel resolution) affects image clarity.