The coding agent heading. Claude Code and tools like it represent a huge improvement in what you can usefully get done with LLMs.

Mistakes and hallucinations matter a whole lot less if a reasoning LLM can try the code, see that it doesn't work and fix the problem.

▲

walt_grata 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If it actually does that without an argument. I can't believe I have to say that about a computer program

▲

skydhash 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The coding agent heading. Claude Code and tools like it represent a huge improvement in what you can usefully get done with LLMs.

Does it? It's all prompt manipulation. Shell script are powerful yes, but not really huge improvement over having a shell (REPL interface) to the system. And even then a lot of programs just use syscalls or wrapper libraries.

> can try the code, see that it doesn't work and fix the problem.

Can you really say that does happens reliably?

	▲	dham 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You're welcome to try the LLM's yourself and come up with your own conclusions. By what you've posted it doesn't look like you've tried the anything in the last 2 years. Yes LLM's can be annoying, but there has been progress.
	▲	simonw 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Depends on what you mean by "reliably". If you mean 100% correct all of the time then no. If you mean correct often enough that you can expect it to be a productive assistant that helps solve all sorts of problems faster than you could solve them without it, and which makes mistakes infrequently enough that you waste less time fixing them than you would doing everything by yourself then yes, it's plenty reliable enough now.