Is 100x even controversial anymore? Anyone can do it by just throwing the whole backlog at AI and let it go crazy. What's the bottleneck? You don't need to babysit LLMs anymore. The problem is that you can only keep up with so much, but it's obvious that a lot of people and companies don't care about that.

▲

sarchertech an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah 100x is definitely still controversial. 100x means you should be able to whip up a new OS in a week.

Looking at something like Anthropic's attempt to write a C compiler in rust. That definitely wasn’t 100x. It took 2 weeks to build something that wasn’t a viable c compiler. And that was best possible scenario. A very comprehensive spec, an existing implementation to act as an oracle, and existing compilers in the training data.

▲

Kiro an hour ago | parent [-]

Not sure how you reached that conclusion and most people do not make OSes. A normal backlog at a standard company is not comparable.

Your edit is even more peculiar. Writing a C compiler in Rust? Come on. I'm obviously talking about normal grunt work. And what are you even using as a benchmark? It's not 100x compared to what?

	▲	sarchertech an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You’re the one that said it’s a 100x productivity increase, so I assume you meant compared to a software developer writing without AI. What else are you using as a benchmark? So it can’t 100x writing an OS even though it has tons of OS code in the training set. It can’t 100x a compiler. Based on personal experience (and number of games released on Steam compared to last year) it can’t 100x game development. At my very large tech company it can’t 100x development of any of our customer facing products (and we still have a huge backlog). Judging by the fact that the vast majority of us still have jobs and big companies are still paying for Jira, Slack, and Teams, it doesn’t seem like it can 100x anything useful.