I would have agreed a few weeks ago. But I can't anymore, the limitation I see is scope size and not capability. And available context sizes will just get bigger
Have you seen LLM play chess? They would not best an average 6 years old who just learned the rules. I doubt giving them more context would help. There are some thing you can't just parrot your way out.
And I would easily argue that it's harder to copy the behavior of a good software engineer than it is to copy the moves of a good chess players.
Not even talking about understanding the business logic you are actually implementing. Which LLM seems as far as understanding chess.
They find themselves unable to move beyond that initial prototype
I have trouble believing tech investors throwing money towards a founder that shows a vibe coded product without anything else. The product might be vibe coded, BUT the founder show some traction or discovered a new market or something besides a demo. It does not really matter how a founder did the MVP, they did not create google. They just showed, through the MVP, something to investors. What happens next, after money, i doubt it's vibe coded.
It’s the hype cycle. Are LLMs going to become invaluable to software engineering? Definitely. Are they going to do everything everyone on X says they will? Probably not. Right now we’re in the peak of inflated expectations.
Anecdotally I’ve been using Claude to help me write a C# CLI tool from scratch. The more lines I let it write, the less and less I understand the code. Can I copy/paste it and it works? Probably 90% of the time. When I have to go and fix it, it is a huge burden.
When I prompt it to do one singular function, it’s amazing. That’s a clear and concise unit to understand.
4 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 17.5 ms ] threadAnd I would easily argue that it's harder to copy the behavior of a good software engineer than it is to copy the moves of a good chess players.
Not even talking about understanding the business logic you are actually implementing. Which LLM seems as far as understanding chess.
A startup founder uses AI to create an MVP
to
They secure funding based on the demo
to
They find themselves unable to move beyond that initial prototype
I have trouble believing tech investors throwing money towards a founder that shows a vibe coded product without anything else. The product might be vibe coded, BUT the founder show some traction or discovered a new market or something besides a demo. It does not really matter how a founder did the MVP, they did not create google. They just showed, through the MVP, something to investors. What happens next, after money, i doubt it's vibe coded.
Anecdotally I’ve been using Claude to help me write a C# CLI tool from scratch. The more lines I let it write, the less and less I understand the code. Can I copy/paste it and it works? Probably 90% of the time. When I have to go and fix it, it is a huge burden.
When I prompt it to do one singular function, it’s amazing. That’s a clear and concise unit to understand.