Comment by anonymous908213
17 hours ago
For a definition of 100 which includes nobody actually using any LLM-written software in production at scale, other than Codex and Claude Code, which are both horrifically buggy, bloated, insecure pieces of software that are only used for their association with another piece of software gated behind them and which nobody would choose to use if they were themselves third-party harnesses. If LLMs could get to 100, the promised software revolution I am told is here every day would actually be visible.
We would be using LLM-generated compilers, an LLM-generated OS, an LLM-generated browser, LLM-generated databases, etc. etc. etc. etc, and not only are we not using all of those things, we're not using a single one of those things. Nobody is buying LLM-generated games, nobody is using LLM-generated consumer applications that replace Photoshop or Final Cut or Blender or Unity ("PhotoCraft" is itself an admitted scam from its own prompter, who outright confessed here that he lied about its capabilities on Reddit to build hype), nobody is accomplishing anything of economic value. LLMs are obviously hundreds of times more "productive" than humans, so the moment they can reach 100, all of these things would happen basically overnight, and yet none of them have happened. Curious, isn't it?
What makes you think people _aren't_ using LLMs to work on your OS, your compilers, your databases? I know for a fact Microsoft is using LLMs heavily in development. Linux now accepts LLM PRs. We just had an article a few days ago about how PostgreSQL is having dozens of bugs discovered and fixed via LLMs. I work in compilers and everyone I know uses LLMs.
I am talking about people starting new projects, which was the subject of this subthread. I am aware that Microsoft is using LLMs to work on Windows, and now they have remote code execution in MS Paint. Great. The ability to commit shit code to something that is already in production is not exactly revolutionary either.
> how PostgreSQL is having dozens of bugs discovered and fixed via LLMs
The PostgreSQL article was specifically about how the LLMs were incapable of fixing bugs, meaning they had to delay their next major version because humans were unable to deal with the volume of issues reported. I did not make a claim that LLMs are useless, could not help review code, etc, but there is a difference between a useful tool and something that generates production-ready software wholesale.
This is what "100" looks like if you try to generate a DB from scratch: https://jepsen.io/analyses/particledb-1.1.4 - written in Rust, ""formally verified"", scammed AI-pilled investors out of $90 million for a database that fundamentally doesn't work in any capacity whatsoever.
>I am talking about people starting new projects, which was the subject of this subthread.
The subthread was also about 80-100. This seems like a goal post move.
>The PostgreSQL article was specifically about how the LLMs were incapable of fixing bugs
We must have read different articles. This one does not say that, as best as I can tell: https://www.theregister.com/databases/2026/10/16/postgres-19...
What prevents AI from cloning photoshop feature for feature, bug for bug?
You have the perfect verifier.
The Halting Problem, for one.
https://github.com/storytold/photocraft
5 replies →
> We would be using LLM-generated compilers, an LLM-generated OS, an LLM-generated browser, LLM-generated databases, etc. etc. etc. etc, and not only are we not using all of those things, we're not using a single one of those things.
Speak for yourself :)