I've seen people post this same advice and I agree with you that it works but you would think they would absorb this common strategy and integrate it as part of the underlying product at this point...

▲

noosphr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people who build the models don't understand how to use the models. It's like asking people who design CPUs to build data-centers.

I've interviewed with three tier one AI labs and _no-one_ I talked to had any idea where the business value of their models came in.

Meanwhile Chinese labs are releasing open source models that do what you need. At this point I've build local agentic tools that are better than anything Claude and OAI have as paid offerings, including the $2,000 tier.

Of course they cost between a few dollars to a few hundred dollars per query so until hardware gets better they will stay happily behind corporate moats and be used by the people blessed to burn money like paper.

▲

criemen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The people who build the models don't understand how to use the models. It's like asking people who design CPUs to build data-centers.

This doesn't match the sentiment on hackernews and elsewhere that claude code is the superior agentic coding tool, as it's developed by one of the AI labs, instead of a developer tool company.

▲

noosphr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Claude code is babies first agentic tool.

You don't see better ones from code tooling companies because the economics don't work out. No one is going to pay $1,000 for a two line change on a 500,000k line code base after waiting four hours.

LLMs today the equivalent of a 4bit ALU without memory being sold as a fully functional personal computer. And like ALUs today, you will need _thousands_ of LLMs to get anything useful done, also like ALUs in 1950 we're a long way off from a personal computer being possible.

	▲	fragmede a day ago \| parent [-]
		That's $500k/yr, and I guarantee there's a non-zero amount of humans out there doing exactly that and getting paid that much, because of course we know that lines of code is a dumbass metric and the problem with large mature codebases is that because they're so large and mature, making changes is very difficult, especially when trying to fix hairy customer bugs in code that has a lot of interactions.

▲

Barbing 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Very interesting. And plausible.

Doesn't specifically seem to jive with the claim Anthropic made where they were worried about Claude Code being their secret sauce, leaving them unsure whether to publicly release it. (I know some skeptical about that claim.)

▲

nostrademons 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of it is integrated into the product at this point. If you have a particularly tricky bug, you can just tell Claude "I have this bug. I expected output 'foo' and got output 'bar'. What went wrong?" It will inspect the code and sometimes suggest a fix. If you run it and it still doesn't work, you can say "Nope, still not working", and Claude will add debug output to the whole program, tell you to run it again, and paste the debug output back into the console. Then it will use your example to write tests, and run against them.

▲

tombot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Claude Code at least now lets you use its best model for planning mode and its cheapest model for coding mode.

▲

candiddevmike 2 days ago | parent [-]

The consulting world parallels here are funny

	▲	baq 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Humans are agents after all