How did you know you're not stuck at a local optimum where the AI could iterate even faster if you enforced higher quality on what it produced?

To make up some hypothetical numbers in order to illustrate with math: if you ship bugfixes 10x faster but then have 11x more bugs you need to fix, that's not a net improvement. Even if it's only 5x more bugs, maybe you could reduce that to 2x if you changed how you worked to only be 8x as fast in a way that produced higher quality code. Similarly, maybe you could cut the time it needed to produce a new feature by 50% if your code were higher quality by moving 20% slower.

My point in all of this isn't that you literally need to work the same way you did before you had these tools, but that framing it as either "move fast and ignore the code" and "use the same exact heuristics you would in the pre-LLM days for what code is acceptable" is a false dichotomy. If you aren't thinking about how effectively you're using these tools and whether there are changes you could make to move even faster because "AI go brrr", I think you've lost the plot in the same way you probably think that other people in this thread have.

▲

geraldwhen 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s a new form of development. The thing that the author didn’t state is that to work the code base at all, you must also use these tools and workflows.

Manual edits literally aren’t possible. You can’t grok the code growth and the new patterns fast enough to be productive.

This does work. I’ve seen it in real products. Nobody has a real mental model of the code flows. But with enough money in Claude credits it doesn’t matter.

The spend to support this development model is something like $50/day/developer.

	▲	saghm 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't understand what anything you're saying has to do with what I said. My claim is that "groking the code" is not a binary, and you can balance between full vibe mode without ever reading it and requiring that you understand every single line, with the corollary that it's at least plausible that being on the far end of the spectrum where you never read it isn't safe to assume is the global optimum, and your rebuttal seems to be "well it's not the global minimum".