In my own anecdotal experience Claude Code found a bug in production faster than I could. I was the author of the said code, that was written 4 years ago by hand. GPs claim perhaps is not all that unsubstantiated. My role is moving more towards QA/PM nowadays.

▲

verdverm 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I have many wins with Ai, I also have many fail hards. This experience helps me understand where their limits are

Do you have fail hards to share along with your wins? Are we going to only share our wins like stonk hussies?

	▲	throwaway7783 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		For sure. Not hard fails, but bad fixes. It confidently thought it fixed a bug, but it really didn't. I could only tell (it was fairly complex), because I tried reproducing it before/after. Ultimately I believe there was not sufficient context provided to it. It has certainly failed to do what I asked it to do in round 1, round 2, but eventually got it right (a rendering issue for a barcode designer). These incidents have been less and less over the last year - switching it Opus made failure frequencies less. Same thing for code reviews. Most of it is fluff, but it does give useful feedback, if the instructions are good. For example, I asked for a blind code review of a PR ("Review this PR"), and it gave some generic commentary. I made the prompt more specific ("Follow the API changes across modules and see impact") - it found a serious bug. The number of times I had to give up in frustration has been going down over the last one year. So I tend believe a swarm of agents could do a decent job of autonomous development/maintenance over the next few years.