I've been using Claude Code + Opus for side projects. The only thing that's changed for me dev wise is that I QA more, and think more about how to solve my problems.
It definitely feels like a jump in capability. I've found that the long term quality of the codebase doesn't take nosedive nearly as quickly as earlier agentic models. If anything it's about steady or maybe even increasing if you prompt it correctly and ask for "cleanup PRs"
Not sure I’d be worried for my job, but it’s legitimately a significant jump in capabilities, even if other models attempt to fudge higher bench results
> do not know what's coming for us in the next 2-3 years, hell, even next year might be the final turning point already.
What is this based on? Research? Data? Gut feeling?
> but how long will it be until even that is not needed anymore?
You just answered that. 2 to 3 years, hell, even next year, maybe.
> it also saddens me knowing where all of this is heading.
If you know where this is heading why are you not investing everything you have in these companies? Isn't that the obvious conclusion instead of wringing your hands over the loss of a coding job?
It invents a problem, provides a time line, immediately questions itself, and then confidently prognosticates without any effort to explain the information used to arrive at this conclusion.
What am I supposed to take from this? Other than that people are generally irrational when contemplating the future?
TL;DR: There's many more ways to lose money or barely break even than gain from AI investing.
Because unlike previously:
- You can't invest in these things directly (mostly private) so gains are at best diluted for retail investors.
- They can take your job AND still be unprofitable (i.e. on VC money/subsidized).
- Value accures to capital/companies using it potentially, not the AI labs themselves in a competitive market. In which case the gains will be across many industries and be diluted (i.e. not life changing if you invest enough to offset income loss)
Combined with the fact that many are reliant on their income to pay the bills and don't have enough capital to invest in these things and yes:
- They are exposed to the loss of income of their labor.
- They don't have the capital and/or risk tolerance to invest accordingly.
- The way to invest in these isn't obvious and is subject to unsystematic risk (i.e. can you pick the winners?).
Remember when GPT-3 came out and everybody collectively freaked the hell out? That's how I've felt watching the reaction to any of the new model releases lately that make any progress.
I'm honestly not complaining about the model releases, though. Despite their shortcomings, they are extremely useful. I've found Gemini 3 to be an extremely useful learning aid, so as long as I don't blindly trust its output, and if you're trying to learn, you really ought not do that anyways. (Despite what people and benchmarks say, I've already caught some random hallucinations, it still feels like you're likely to run into hallucinations on a regular basis. Not a huge problem, but, you know.)
It's a Misanthropic propaganda forum. They even have Claude agree in the summary of the bot comments:
"The overwhelming consensus in this thread is that OP's fear is justified and Opus represents a terrifying leap in capability. The discussion isn't about if disruption is coming, but how severe it will be and who will survive."
My fellow Romans, I come here not to discuss disruption, but to survive!
Same here. Using it this week and on Thursday I began to understand why Lee Sedol retired not long after being defeated by AlphaGo. For the stuff I'm good at, 3 months ago I was better than the models. Today, I'm not sure.
> Sure, I can watch Opus do my work all day long and make sure to intervene if it fucks up here and there, but how long will it be until even that is not needed anymore?
Right: if you expect your job as a software developer to be effectively the same shape on a year or two you're in for a bad time.
But humans can adapt! Your goal should be to evolve with the tools that are available. In a couple of years time you should be able to produce significantly more, better code, solving more ambitious profiles and making you more valuable as a software professional.
That's how careers have always progressed: I'm a better, faster developer today than I was two years ago.
I'll worry for my career when I meet a company that has a software roadmap that they can feasibly complete.
Honeslty I have a lot of friends who are studying SWE and they are saying the same thing do you guys think that if they do get replaced they'll still be needed to maintin the AI's.
In threads where I see an example of what the author is impressed by, I'm usually not impressed. So when I see something like this, where the author doesn't give any examples, I also assume Claude did something unimpressive.
It's almost vindication for where I work an SDE needs to do everything, infra, development, deployment, launch, operations. There's no dedicated QA, test or operations on a product level, and while AI helped a great deal it's pretty clear it cannot replace me at least within the next 2 to 3 iterations.
If I was only writing code, the fear would be completely justified.
There are still a few things missing from all models: taste, shame and ambition.
Yes they can write code, but they have no idea what needs does that code solve, what a good UX looks like and what not to ship. Not to mention that they all eventually go down rabbit holes of imaginary problems that cannot be solve (because they’re not real), and do where they will spend eternity unless w human says stop it right now.
I used Claude Code to write a relatively complicated watchOS app. I know how to program (FAANG L5), but didn't really know Swift. I achieved a pretty good result for about $600, while a contractor would've cost much more.
I used claude code for a while in the summer, took a vacation from LLMs and I'm trying it out again now. I've heard the same thing about Opus 4.5, but my experience with claude code so far is the same as it was this summer... I guess if you're a casual user don't get too excited?
Almost every single post on the ClaudeAI subreddit is like this. I use Opus 4.5 in my day to day work life and it has quickly become my main axe for agentic stuff but its output is not a world-shattering divergence from Anthropic's previous, also great iterations. The religious zealotry I see with these things is something else.
32 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadPick anything else you have a far better likelihood to fall back into manual process, legal wall, or whatever that AI cannot replace easily.
Good job boys and girls. You will be remembered.
> do not know what's coming for us in the next 2-3 years, hell, even next year might be the final turning point already.
What is this based on? Research? Data? Gut feeling?
> but how long will it be until even that is not needed anymore?
You just answered that. 2 to 3 years, hell, even next year, maybe.
> it also saddens me knowing where all of this is heading.
If you know where this is heading why are you not investing everything you have in these companies? Isn't that the obvious conclusion instead of wringing your hands over the loss of a coding job?
It invents a problem, provides a time line, immediately questions itself, and then confidently prognosticates without any effort to explain the information used to arrive at this conclusion.
What am I supposed to take from this? Other than that people are generally irrational when contemplating the future?
Because unlike previously:
Combined with the fact that many are reliant on their income to pay the bills and don't have enough capital to invest in these things and yes:I'm honestly not complaining about the model releases, though. Despite their shortcomings, they are extremely useful. I've found Gemini 3 to be an extremely useful learning aid, so as long as I don't blindly trust its output, and if you're trying to learn, you really ought not do that anyways. (Despite what people and benchmarks say, I've already caught some random hallucinations, it still feels like you're likely to run into hallucinations on a regular basis. Not a huge problem, but, you know.)
"The overwhelming consensus in this thread is that OP's fear is justified and Opus represents a terrifying leap in capability. The discussion isn't about if disruption is coming, but how severe it will be and who will survive."
My fellow Romans, I come here not to discuss disruption, but to survive!
Right: if you expect your job as a software developer to be effectively the same shape on a year or two you're in for a bad time.
But humans can adapt! Your goal should be to evolve with the tools that are available. In a couple of years time you should be able to produce significantly more, better code, solving more ambitious profiles and making you more valuable as a software professional.
That's how careers have always progressed: I'm a better, faster developer today than I was two years ago.
I'll worry for my career when I meet a company that has a software roadmap that they can feasibly complete.
In threads where I see an example of what the author is impressed by, I'm usually not impressed. So when I see something like this, where the author doesn't give any examples, I also assume Claude did something unimpressive.
If I was only writing code, the fear would be completely justified.
1) it’s not impartial
2) it’s useless hype commentary
3) it’s literally astroturfing at this point