How is that relevant to my response?

The argument I responded to argued that cost might be the prohibiting factor. I'm saying that for them, the costs mentioned are negligible.

▲

pdimitar 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't claim that the cost is the prohibiting factor at all. Obviously they gave Jarred free Fable access and to do as his pleases. The cost was an FYI tidbit and nothing more.

What I argued was that you seemed to have been arguing an extreme point i.e. LLMs can one-shot stuff in any PL and that it does not matter in what PL they'd rewrite Bun.

If I misunderstood -- my apologies.

▲

coldtea 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, I never said anything about one-shotting it.

What I said is, those AI companies push LLMs as the replacement of programmers, that can do everything code-wise, say their programmers "don't write code anymore" etc.

So how come they can't have the LLM write something better than "react for cli" for their flagship agent product?

	▲	pdimitar 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My only half-decent guess: they deem it too big and risky and believe they'll lose revenue while working on it and ironing out remaining kinks. Claude Code is likely not well-specified and it's a product of rapid iteration and now nobody really knows how the whole thing works. LLMs don't do well when requirements are muddy.