No, it actually has an exponential growth type of effect on productivity to be able to push it to the boundary more.

I’m making this a bit contrived, but I’m simplifying it to demonstrate the underlying point.

When an LLM is 80% effect, I’m limits to doing 5 things in parallel since I still need to jump in 20% of the time.

When an LLM is 90% effect, I can do 10 things at once. When it’s 95%, 20 things. 99%, 100 things.

Now, obviously I can’t actually juggle 10 or 20 things at once. However, the point is there are actually massive productivity gains to be had when you can reduce your involvement in a task from 20% to, even 10%. You’re effectively 2x as productive.

▲

deadbabe 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I’d bet you don’t even have 2 or 3 things to do at once, much less 100. So it’s pointless to chase those types of coverages.

▲

Jensson 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you understand what parallel means? Most LLM responds in seconds, there is no parallel work for you to do there.

Or do you mean you are using long running agents to do tasks and then review those? I haven't seen such a workflow be productive so far.

	▲	SkyPuncher 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I run through a really extensive planning step that generates technical architecture and iterative tasks. I then send an LLM along to implement each step, debugging, iterative, and verifying it's work. It's not uncommon for it to take a non-trivial amount of time to complete a step (5+ minutes). Right now, I still need to intervene enough that I'm not actually doing a second coding project in parallel. I tend to focus on communication, documentation, and other artifacts that support the code I'm writing. However, I am very close to hitting that point and occasionally do on easier tasks. There's a _very_ real tipping point in productivity when you have confidence that an LLM can accomplish a certain task without your intervention. You can start to do things legitimately in parallel when you're only really reviewing outputs and doing minor tweaks.