I think the sweet spot is to make the initial stuff yourself and then extend or modify somewhat with LLMs

it acts as a guide for the LLM too, so it doesn't have to just come up with everything on its own in terms of style or design choices in terms of consistency I'd say?

For more complex projects I find this pattern very helpful. The last two gens of SOTA models have become rather good at following existing code patterns.

If you have a solid architecture they can be almost prescient in their ability to modify things. However they're a bit like Taylor series expansions. They only accurate out so far from the known basis. Hmm, or control theory where you have stable and unstable regimes.

and if you do a hard refresh on the webapp, it literally takes like 10 seconds for the homepage to load

Yeah, one that I forgot to mention is if you pause a youtube short and go to a different tab, the short will unpause in the background, or it might change to an entirely different short and start playing that.

because it's not easy to identify exactly when to r/w memory accordingly, especially when you'd need to have an LLM decide when and if to do that

and to scale it in a way where you don't need a whole custom model loaded for 1 user (financially unviable)

just my immediate thoughts, could be wrong though.

I would doubt that because books are probably weighed as higher quality and more trustworthy than random Reddit posts

Especially if it's unsupervised training

was this actually generated with Claude/GPT?

I didn't really notice it at first but on a second read it's full of this crap?

how does that help pay the rent? or how would that get you past resume screening?

but are employers going to be fine with that?

That remains to be seen. As long as the work gets done... Don't ask, don't tell.

It does NOT remain to be seen. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/26/accenture-plans-on-exiting-s... Big players are already moving in the direction of "join us or leave us". So if you can't keep up and you aren't developing or "reinventing" something faster with the help of AI, it was nice knowing you.

I didn't say don't use AI at all, I said give it the boilerplate, rote work. Developers can still work on more interesting things. Maybe not all the interesting things.

That may be fine ... if it remains your choice. I'm saying companies are outmoding people (programmers, designers, managers, et al) who don't leverage AI to do their job the fastest. If one programmer uses AI to do boilerplate and then codes the interesting bits personally and it takes a week and another does it all with AI (orchestrating agents, etc) and it takes 2 hours and produces the same output (not code but business value), the AI orchestrator/manager will be valued above the former.

I get your point, but I think smart people will figure out a balance. That 2 hours of output could take a week to debug and test.

Yes! I am not advocating for the 2 hours and the "vision" of managers and CEOs. Quite the contrary. But it is the world we live in for now. It's messy and chaotic and many people may (will?) be hurt. I don't like it. But I'm trying to be one of the "smart people". What does that look like? I hope I find out.

I don't like it, either. I hear people ranting about doing "everything with AI" on one meeting, and what a productivity boost it is, then I get tagged on a dumpster fire PR full of slop and emoji filled log statements. Like did you even look at your code at all? "Oh sorry I don't know how that got in there!"

These are the same employers that mandate return to office for distributed teams and micro-manage every access of our work. I think we know how its going to play out.

problem today is that there is no "sink" for money to go to when it flows upwards. we have resorted to raising interest rates to curb inflation, but that doesn't fix the problem, it just gives them an alternative income source (bonds/fixed income)

I'm not a hard socialist or anything, but the economics don't make sense. if there's cheap credit and the money supply perpetually expands without a sink, of course people with the most capital will just compound their wealth.

so much of the "economy" orbits around the capital markets and number going up. it's getting detached from reality. or maybe I'm just missing something.

Yeah it's called wealth transfer and the vast majority is on the wrong end.

All of this crap has already been figured out by Silvio Gesell and his free economics ("Freiwirtschaft") movement before world war two. In fact, it has been figured out before Lenin got to power. Communists could have just stolen his ideas, pretended that they were their own and be done with capitalism.

Instead, we live in this absurd timeline where our communist "saviors" preferred losing against capitalists over achieving their stated goals. This tells us that in communism, the means are the goal and the proclaimed end goal is just an excuse to perform the means.

If communists genuinely wanted to help their people and they accept that they might not know how to get there, they would at least run hundreds to thousands of economic experiments, something that wouldn't be possible under capitalism, to find the methods that work. Instead, the self proclaimed saviors are inherently anti-reformist and against incremental change to improve society. They demand that all economic activity be under the control of the state and thereby destroy all possibility of performing economic experiments.

what makes you think that's actually possible? maybe if you really had the connections and sales experience etc...

but also, if that were possible, then why wouldn't prices go down? why would the value of such labor stay so high if the same thing can be done by other individuals?

I saw it happen more back in the day compared to now. Point being, nobody batted an eyelash at being entirely dependent on some company's proprietary tech. It was how money was made in the business.