This feels to me like peak sfba mentality on par with "move fast and break things". Outside of trying to create a unicorn, is this really how people create things?

It seems to me that in order to obtain the ability to build things that other people like, you need to go through the process of creating things they won't. Like a painter needs to paint a bunch of crappy paintings to learn how to create a good painting. If you have the LLM create these throwaway prototypes, how will you even know when you come across a good idea and how will you be able to build it.

▲

beagle3 an hour ago | parent [-]

This is how successful things are created. By iterating on less successful things until they become successful.

The cost of iterating (with software) dropped by a few orders of magnitude in the last few months.

▲

slopinthebag 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

But you need to actually be the one doing the iterating, you can't outsource it. The entire point to doing the iteration is the process, not the artefacts.

▲

simonw 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm finding I can iterate significantly faster if the coding agent is doing the typing for me, and learn at a faster rate as a result.

	▲	slopinthebag 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Hmm interesting, I didn't realise people were using it as a typing replacement instead of having it work agentically. Does that mean when you want to change a line of code somewhere, you just prompt the LLM to replace line 334 with your changes etc? So do you not use the LLM autonomously at all then? Sounds like it since you're still doing the iteration yourself.