> write 20kloc of Rust code every day (and I review all of it)

Only one of this can be true. It's not a shame to say you don't bother reviewing it, in the future that may well be the norm.

So you now have 400Kloc of Rust code? Doing what? How much of that is "new"?

I can't get Augment / Opus 4.5 to edit a few C++ files from within VSCode without going off on a wild goose chase or getting stuck in an infinite loop after I tell that it should be doing this: "oh, you're right, I need to do X", "To do X, I must understand how to do Y", "I see now that to do Y, I should look at at Z". "Let me look at Z", followed by: "oh, you're right, I need to do X"..

> 20kloc of Rust code every day (and I review all of it).

Reviewing 1k lines of code an hour is a breakneck pace, are you spending 20 hours a day reviewing code?

To do what, exactly, and are people paying you for your output or are you just making things for yourself?

Building things at a mature company with a market is a lot different than hacking together your own tools. There are a lot more people you can let down at scale.

What does all this code do? What software are you writing?

That’s the same definition of reviewing code as saying watching the movie is the same as reading the book it’s based on. No human has ever reviewed 600k lines of code in a month, ever. It’s hard to find someone who can even read and understand that amount in that time.

I’m convinced these “guys you gotta believe me I’m a seasoned veteran and this shit is the real deal” posts that show up in every AI thread are either coming from Sam Altman or a bot.

> They just need to put all of the engineers on HN out of work.

I think you've crossed the line from being an AI maxi to just rage baiting. This comment is a pointless anecdote at best, please take your ridiculous FOMO takes elsewhere.

Extremely debatable. Especially because there is no "The Turing Test" [0] only a game and a few instances were described by Turing. I recommend reading the original paper before making bold claims about it. The bar for the interrogator has certainly be raised, but considering:

- the prevalence "How many |r|'s are in the word 'strawberry'?" esque questions that cause(d) LLMs to stumble

- context window issues

It would be naive to claim that there does not exist, or even that it would be difficult to construct/train, an interrogator that could reliably distinguish between an LLM and human chat instance.

[0]: https://archive.computerhistory.org/projects/chess/related_m...

Sure, when the expected monetary value was 0. Then they started claiming that investing $1,000,000,000,000.00 (that's $1T) into a 4 year old startup was a good idea. Change the valuation, change the goal. Then the goal was be better than a human employees (or at least more efficient or even just improves efficiency) because without that the value of the LLM is far lower than what it is being sold as. All the research so far says that LLMs fall far short of that goal. And if this was someone else's money, fine. But this is basically everyone's retirement savings. Again, higher valuation, higher goal. Finally, when you start losing people's retirement savings, criminal penalties start getting attached to things.