Comment by aspenmartin
2 hours ago
The solution truly is more AI, yes.
> AI craze isn't going to produce the boon some people think it will.
What’s the boon you don’t think it will produce?
2 hours ago
The solution truly is more AI, yes.
> AI craze isn't going to produce the boon some people think it will.
What’s the boon you don’t think it will produce?
No. It's not more AI. The solution is designing and sticking to development process that is more resilient to errors than the one that's currently happening. This isn't a novel idea. Code reviews weren't always part of the process, neither was VCS, nor bug tracker etc.
The way AI is set up today, it's trying to replicate the (hopefully) good existing practices. Possibly faster. The real change comes from inventing better practices (something AI isn't capable of, at least not the kind of AI that's being sold to the programmers today).
What better practices do you mean? Are you saying we just need different more agentic-friendly practices that ensure scaled reliability beyond what we can manually check? If so I totally agree.
AI is 100% capable fundamentally of making new processes. Look I mean it’s not like I think opus 4.7 is all you need, but how can you argue with the fact that adoption since 4.5 has been an inflection point? That’s kind of proof that reliability has reached a level that serious usage is possible. That’s over a period of months. When you zoom out further you see this is extremely predictable even a few years ago, despite the absolute hissy fits thrown on HN when CEOs began saying this.
Agentic coding is verifiable and this implies there are very few practical limits to what it can do. Combine that with insanely active research on tackling the remaining issues (hallucinations — which are not a fundamentally unsolvable problem at a practical level, context rot, continual learning etc)