4 ms·

There are some good points, and I ask the question of where is the ground breaking stuff myself, but severely weakened by * stretching the timeline: the actual

by blfr 18d ago

There are some good points, and I ask the question of where is the ground breaking stuff myself, but severely weakened by * stretching the timeline: the actual real programming ability appeared in LLMs in the last 6-8 months, not 3-4 years, * using the weakest possible tool: and I bought $10 worth of DeepSeek credits that is a far cry from Claude with Fable. Also, I know nothing about marathons but for most uses putting the app, database, and background processes on the same server is very much the right starting point. With the next steps being employing Cloudflare or similar solutions long before managing a fleet of servers.

Marazan 18d ago
I remember being told in early 2025 that only now has "real programming ability" appeared in LLMs. And since then there's been 3 more "now real programming ability has been made available and previous stuff was just toy examples" cycles (summer 2025, winter 2025 and spring 2026) Looking forward to the next "everything before this was trivial and bad, here's the good stuff" moment
- rcxdude 17d ago
  It's a bit Goomba Fallacy. For different people the threshold was crossed at different times. That you're getting told different things by different people doesn't make those statements self-contradictory.
- Ampersander 18d ago
  Yeah, it's interesting how the current thing is always the end of programming, but then when a new thing comes it turns into absolute trash that can't be used for anything.
- bschwindHN 17d ago
  If you haven't been using the latest NanoQwen27B-5.2.10-Turbo-KimiGLM-Pro-10.4 in the past 13 hours, your information on what LLMs can do is outdated and you're falling behind. Check your priors.
uxhacker 18d ago
Is the issue that nobody has come up with the idea for the great ground breaking ideas? Or B that the ideas are there but are not get released as the code is ai slop?
Systemerror7A69 18d ago
Even as someone using AI on the regular I'm starting to hate the "You didn't actually use this exact most expensive model so your point is invalid" argument. This is fair to say if someones last experience with AI was copy-pasting code into GPT3 chat windows years ago, but Deepseek is a more than capabale model and enough for someone to get an informed opinion about the technology. If people have actual counter argument, use those. And if some of those counter argument are "What you say isn't possible, the neweste model can do and here are examples of that", that is fine. But a blanket "Nuh-uh, it wasn't Model X" is not only a poor argument but also automatically invalidates any criticism when a new, better model comes out - and that can't be the basis of a good argument.
- Mallchad 9d ago
  [dead]
- smokel 18d ago
  In this case, the argument is valid though. Only recently have some of the models become powerful enough (for some) to actually be useful in day to day programming, without too much hand-holding. For most, this change occurred with the introduction of Claude Opus, and OpenAI and Google have caught up. Unfortunately, none of the "open" models is at this level yet. The field is moving fast, and asking for scientific arguments is not realistic. It takes an extreme amount of effort to show what exactly is different. We were in a similar position with static vs dynamic typing for decades. There is still no scientific proof that one is better than the other, but it is quite obvious to professionals which flavor works better in a given situation. So, even though the argument might be sloppy, I subscribe to it. Using DeepSeek to dismiss better models is the bad argument here. Edit: added "(for some)" as a disclaimer that you still need to be a fairly decent programmer to actually benefit.
  - bigstrat2003 17d ago
    > Only recently have some of the models become powerful enough (for some) to actually be useful in day to day programming, without too much hand-holding. That still is very much not the case. Every model, yes, including $most_recent_model, needs supervision or you will get burned.

by blfr 18d ago

Marazan 18d ago

I remember being told in early 2025 that only now has "real programming ability" appeared in LLMs. And since then there's been 3 more "now real programming ability has been made available and previous stuff was just toy examples" cycles (summer 2025, winter 2025 and spring 2026) Looking forward to the next "everything before this was trivial and bad, here's the good stuff" moment

rcxdude 17d ago
It's a bit Goomba Fallacy. For different people the threshold was crossed at different times. That you're getting told different things by different people doesn't make those statements self-contradictory.
Ampersander 18d ago
Yeah, it's interesting how the current thing is always the end of programming, but then when a new thing comes it turns into absolute trash that can't be used for anything.
bschwindHN 17d ago
If you haven't been using the latest NanoQwen27B-5.2.10-Turbo-KimiGLM-Pro-10.4 in the past 13 hours, your information on what LLMs can do is outdated and you're falling behind. Check your priors.

uxhacker 18d ago

Is the issue that nobody has come up with the idea for the great ground breaking ideas? Or B that the ideas are there but are not get released as the code is ai slop?

Systemerror7A69 18d ago

Even as someone using AI on the regular I'm starting to hate the "You didn't actually use this exact most expensive model so your point is invalid" argument. This is fair to say if someones last experience with AI was copy-pasting code into GPT3 chat windows years ago, but Deepseek is a more than capabale model and enough for someone to get an informed opinion about the technology. If people have actual counter argument, use those. And if some of those counter argument are "What you say isn't possible, the neweste model can do and here are examples of that", that is fine. But a blanket "Nuh-uh, it wasn't Model X" is not only a poor argument but also automatically invalidates any criticism when a new, better model comes out - and that can't be the basis of a good argument.

Mallchad 9d ago
[dead]
smokel 18d ago
In this case, the argument is valid though. Only recently have some of the models become powerful enough (for some) to actually be useful in day to day programming, without too much hand-holding. For most, this change occurred with the introduction of Claude Opus, and OpenAI and Google have caught up. Unfortunately, none of the "open" models is at this level yet. The field is moving fast, and asking for scientific arguments is not realistic. It takes an extreme amount of effort to show what exactly is different. We were in a similar position with static vs dynamic typing for decades. There is still no scientific proof that one is better than the other, but it is quite obvious to professionals which flavor works better in a given situation. So, even though the argument might be sloppy, I subscribe to it. Using DeepSeek to dismiss better models is the bad argument here. Edit: added "(for some)" as a disclaimer that you still need to be a fairly decent programmer to actually benefit.
- bigstrat2003 17d ago
  > Only recently have some of the models become powerful enough (for some) to actually be useful in day to day programming, without too much hand-holding. That still is very much not the case. Every model, yes, including $most_recent_model, needs supervision or you will get burned.