I don't think so. That's a good point but the capability has been outpacing people's ability to use it for a while and that will continue.

Put another way, the ability to use AI became an important factor in overall software engineering ability this year, and as the year goes on the gap between the best and worst users or AI will widen faster because the models will outpace the harnesses

▲

eddythompson80 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s the comical understanding being pushed by management in software companies yes. The people who never actually use the tools themselves, but the concept of it. It’s the same AGI nonesense, but dumped down to something they think they can control.

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

daxfohl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, right now "bleeding edge" is an autonomous agents system that spends a million dollars making an unbelievably bad browser prototype in a week. Very high effort and the results are jibberish. By the time these sorts of things are actually reliable, they'll be productized single-click installer apps on your network server, with a simple web interface to manage them.

If you just mean, "hey you should learn to use the latest version of Claude Code", sure.

▲

mgraczyk 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean that you should stay up to date and practiced on how to get the most out of models. Using harnesses like Claude code sure, but also knowing their strengths and weaknesses so you can learn when and how to delegate and take on more scope

	▲	daxfohl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Okay yeah that's a good middle ground, and I'd even say I agree. It's not about being on the bleeding edge or being a first adopter or anything, but the fact that if you commit to a tool, it's almost always worth spending some time learning how to use it most effectively.