I'm seeing legitimate 10x gains because I'm not writing code anymore – I'm thinking about code and reading code. The AI facilitates both. For context: I'm maintaining a well-structured enterprise codebase (100k+ lines Django). The reality is my input is still critically valuable. My insights guide the LLM, my code review is the guardrail. The AI doesn't replace the engineer, it amplifies the intent.
Using Claude Code Opus 4.5 right now and it's insane. I love it. It's like being a writer after Gutenberg invented the printing press rather than the monk copying books by hand before it.
The LLM marketing exploits fear and sympathy. It pressures people into urgency. Those things can be shown and have been shown. Whether or not the actual LLM based tools genuinely help you has nothing to do with that.
Of course it is a little more nuanced than this and I would agree that some of the marketing hype around AI is overblown, but I think it is inarguable that AI can provide concrete benefits for many people.
My company just released a year-long productivity chart covering our shift to Claude Code, and overall, developer productivity has plummeted despite the self-reported productivity survey conveying developers felt it had shot through the roof.
The line becomes a lot blurrier when you work on non trivial issues.
A Django app is not particularly hard software, it's hardly software but a conduit from database to screens and vice-versa; which is basic software since the days of terminals. I'm not judging your job, if you get paid well for doing that, all power to you. I had a well paying Laravel job at some point.
What I'm raising though is the fact that AI is not that useful for applications that aren't solving what has been solved 100 times before. Maybe it will be, some day, reasoning that well that it will anticipate and solve problems that don't exist yet. But it will always be an inference on current problems solved.
Glad to hear you're enjoying it, personally, I enjoy solving problems, not the end result as much.
Also, almost all problems are composite problems where each part is either prior art or in itself somewhat trivial. If you can onboard the LLM onto the problem domain and help it decompose then it can tackle a whole lot more than what it has seen during pre- and post-training.
That's not how book printing works and I'd argue the monk can far more easy create new text and devise new interpretations. And they did in the sidelines of books. It takes a long time to prepare one print but nearly just as long as to print 100 which is where the good of the printing press comes from. It's not the ease of changing or making large sums of text, it's the ease of reproducing and since copy/paste exist it is a very poor analogue in my opinion.
I'd also argue the 10x is subject/observer bias since they are the same person. My experience at this point is that boilerplate is fine with LLMs, and if that's only what you do good for you, otherwise it will hardly speed up anything as the code is the easy part.
It’s like arguing that the piano in the room is out of tune and not bothering to walk over to the piano and hit its keys.
They don't have time to check more stuff as they are busy with their life.
People who did check the stuff don't have time in life to prove to the ones that argue "in exactly whatever the person arguing would find useful way".
Personally like a year ago I was the person who tried out some ChatGPT and didn't have time to dabble, because all the hype was off putting and of course I was finding more important and interesting things to do in my life besides chatting with some silly bot that I can trick easily with trick questions or consider it not useful because it hallucinated something I wanted in a script.
I did take a plunge for really a deep dive into AI around April last year and I saw for my own eyes ... and only that convinced me. Using API where I built my own agent loop, getting details from images, pdf files, iterating on the code, getting unstructured "human" input into structured output I can handle in my programs.
*Data classification is easy for LLM. Data transformation is a bit harder but still great. Creating new data is hard so like answering questions where it has to generate stuff from thin air it will hallucinate like a mad man.*
Data classification like "is it a cat, answer with yes or no" it will be hard for latest models to start hallucinating.
Do I now get the right to talk badly about all LLM coding, or is there another exercise I need to take?
Yes, the technology is interesting and useful. No, it is not a “10x” miracle.
How long have you been in the industry?
This does not seem a revolution compared with database standardization, abandonment of assembly for most coding, introduction of game engines, etc.
I see a lot of hype for LLMs from people that do not have the experience to compare them to anything else.
Then why is half of the big tech companies using Microsoft Teams and sending mails with .docx embedded in ?
Of course marketing matters.
And of course the hard facts also matters, and I don't think anybody is saying that AI agents are purely marketing hype. But regardless, it is still interesting to take a step back and observe what marketing pressures we are subject to.
Self-reports on this have been remarkably unreliable.
How do I know? Because I am testing it, and I see a lot of problems that you are not mentioning.
I don’t know if you’ve been conned or you are doing the conning. It’s at least one of those.
It was something like this:
"We think we are building Ultron but really we are building the Iron Man suit. It will be a technology to amplify humans, not replace them"
How do you avoid this turning into spaghetti? Do you understand/read all the output?
This may be true. The commenter may "believe in this tech" based on his experimentation with it
But the majority of sentences following this statement ironically appear to be "marketing hype" or "someone telling [us] it's good":
1. "The productivity gains I'm seeing right now are unprecedented."
2. "Even a year ago this wouldn't have been possible, it really feels like an inflection point."
3. "I'm seeing legitimate 10x gains because I'm not writing code anymore - I'm thinking about code and reading code."
4. "Using Claude Code Opus 4.5 right now and it's insane."
5. "It's like being a writer after Gutenberg invented the printing press rather than the monk copying books by hand before it."
The "framing" in this blog post is not focused on whether "this tech" actually saves anyone any time or money
It is focused on _hype_, namely how "this tech" is promoted. That promotion could be intentional or unintentional
N.B. I am not "agreeing" with the blog post author or "disagreeing" with the HN commenter, or vice versa. The point I'm making is that one is focused on whether "this tech" works for them and the other is focused on how "this tech" is being promoted. Those are two different things, as other replies have also noted. Additionally, the comment appears to be an example of the promotion (hype) that its author claims is not the basis for his "belief in this tech"
I think the use of the term "belief" is interesting
That term normally implies a lack of personal knowledge:
151 "Belief" gcide "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Belief \Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See {Believe}.]
1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses. [1913 Webster]
Belief admits of all degrees, from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance. --Reid. [1913 Webster]
2. (Theol.) A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith. [1913 Webster]
No man can attain [to] belief by the bare contemplation of heaven and earth. --Hooker. [1913 Webster]
4. A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. [1913 Webster]
In the heat of persecution to which Christian belief was subject upon its first promulgation. --Hooker. [1913 Webster]
{Ultimate belief}, a first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition. --Sir W. Hamilton. [1913 Webster]
Syn: Credence; trust; reliance; assurance; opinion. [1913 Webster]
151 "belief" wn "WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006)"
belief
n 1: any cognitive content held as true [ant: {disbelief}, {unbelief}]
2: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying" [syn: {impression}, {feeling}, {belief}, {notion}, {opinion}]
151 "BELIEF" bouvier "Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)"
BELIEF. The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from. the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence. " Without recurring to the books of metaphysicians' "says Chief Justice Tilghman, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 137, "let any man of plain common sense, examine the operations of, his own mind, he will assuredly find that on different subjects his belief is different. I have a firm belief that, the moon revolves round the earth. I may believe, too, that there are mountains and valleys in the moon; but this belief is not so strong, because the evidence is weaker." Vide 1 Stark. Ev. 41; 2 Pow. Mortg. 555; 1 Ves. 95; 12 Ves. 80; 1 P. A. Browne's R 258; 1 Stark. Ev. 127; Dyer, 53; 2 Hawk. c. 46, s. 167; 3 Wil. 1, s. 427; 2 Bl. R. 881; Leach, 270; 8 Watts, R. 406; 1 Greenl. Ev. Sec. 7-13, a.
TLDR: everyone thought AI made people faster, including those who did the task, both before and after doing it. However, AI made people slower at doing the task.
But it's clear the LLM's have some real value, even if we always need a human-in-the-loop to prevent hallucinations it can still massively reduce the amount of human labour required for many tasks.
NFT's felt like a con, and in retrospect were a con. The LLM's are clearly useful for many things.
When a con man sells you a cheap watch for an high price, what you get is still useful—a watch that tells the time—but you were also still conned, because what you paid for is not what was advertised. You overpaid because you were tricked about what you were buying.
LLMs are useful for many things, but they’re also not nearly as beneficial and powerful as they’re being sold as. Sam Altman, while entirely ignoring the societal issues raised by the technology (such as the spread of misinformation and unhealthy dependencies), repeatedly claims it will cure all cancers and other kinds of diseases, eradicate poverty, solve the housing crisis, democracy… Those are bullshit, thus the con description applies.
* LLMs are a useful tool in a variety of circumstances.
* Sam Altman is personally incentivised to spout a great deal of hyped-up rubbish about both what LLMs are capable of, and can be capable of.
We had an "essential" reporting function in the business which was done in Excel. All SMEs seem to have little pockets of this. Hours were spent automating the task with VBA to no avail. Then LLMs came in after the CTO became obsessed with it and it got hit with that hammer. This is four iterations of the same job: manual, Excel, Excel+VBA, Excel+CoPilot. 15 years this went on.
No one actually bothered to understand the reason the work was being done and the LLM did not have any context. This was being emailed weekly to a distribution list with no subscribers as the last one had left the company 14 years ago. No one knew, cared or even though about it.
And I see the same in all areas LLMs are used. They are merely pasting over incompetence, bad engineering designs, poor abstractions and low knowledge situations. Literally no one cares about this as long as the work gets done and the world keeps spinning. No one really wants to make anything better, just do the bad stuff faster. If that's where something is useful, then we have fucked up.
Another one. I need to make a form to store some stuff in a database so I can do some analytics on it later. The discussion starts with how we can approach it with ReactJS+microservices+kubernetes. That isn't the problem I need solving. People have been completely blinded on what a problem is and how to get rid of it efficiently.
There is a finite amount of incremental improvements left between the performance of today's LLMs and the limits of human performance.
This alone should give you second thoughts on "AI doomerism".
That could also apply to LLMs, that there would be a hard wall that the current approach can’t breach.
I want to see some numbers before I believe this. So far my feelings is that the best case scenario is that it reduces the time it needs to do bureaucratic tasks, tasks that were not needed anyway and could have just been removed for an even grater boost in productivity. Maybe, it seems to be automating tasks from junior engineer, tasks which they need to perform in order to gain experience and develop their expertise. Although I need to see the numbers before I believe even that.
I have a suspicion that AI is not increasing productivity by any meaningful metric which couldn’t be increased by much much much cheaper and easier means.
I don't think that's of any doubt. Even beyond programming, imo especially beyond programming, there are a great many things they're useful for. The question is; is that worth the enormous cost of running them?
NFT's were cheap enough to produce and that didn't really scale depending on the "quality" of the NFT. With an LLM, if you want to produce something at the same scale as OpenAI or Anthropic the amount of money you need just to run it is staggering.
This has always been the problem, LLMs (as we currently know them) they being a "pretty useful tool" is frankly not good enough for the investment put into them
At this point the "trick" is to scare white collar knowledge workers into submission with low pay and high workload with the assumption that AI can do some of the work.
And do you know a better way to increase your output without giving OpenAI/Claude thousands of dollars? Its morale, improving morale would increase the output in a much more holistic way. Scare the workers and you end up with spaghetti of everyone merging their crappy LLM enhanced code.
Opus 4.5 saved me about 10 hours of debugging stupid issues in an old build system recently - by slicing through the files like a grep ninja and eventually narrowing down onto a thing I surely would have missed myself.
If I were to pay for the tokens I used at API pricing, I'd pay about $3 for that feat. Now, come up with your best estimate: what's the hourly wage of a developer capable of debugging an old build system?
For the reference: by now, the lifetime compute use of frontier models is inference-dominated, at a rate of 1:10 or more. And API costs at all major providers represent selling the model with a good profit margin.
Any standard of intelligence devised before LLMs is passed by LLMs relatively easily. They do things that 10 years ago people would have said are impossible for a computer to do.
I can run claude code on my laptop with an instruction like "fix the sound card on this laptop" and it will analyze what my current settings are, determine what might be wrong, devise tests to have me gather information it can't gather itself, run commands to probe hardware for it's capabilities, and finally offer a menu of solutions, give the commands to implement the solution, and finally test that the solution works perfectly. Can you do that?
But by some subset of definitions my calculator is intelligent. By some subset of definitions a mouse is intelligent. And, more interestingly, by some subset of definitions a mouse is far more intelligent than an LLM.
It works because people have answered similar questions a million times on the internet and the LLMs are trained on it.
So it will work for a while. When the human generated stuff stops appearing online, then LLMs ll quickly fall in usefulness.
But that is enough time for the people who might think that it going to last for ever to make huge investments into it, and the AI companies to get away with the loot.
Actually it is the best kind of scam...
EDIT: Another thought. Thus it seems that AI companies actually have an incentive to hinder developements, because new things mean that their model is less useful. With the widespread dependence on AI, they might even get away with manipulating the population to stagnate.
My pocket calculator is not intelligent. Nor are LLMs.
I don't think conflating intelligence with "what a computer can do" makes much sense though. I can't calculate the X digit of PI in less than Z, I'm still intelligent (or I pretend to be).
But the question is not about intelligence, it's a red herring, it's just about utility and they (LLM's) are useful.
Yes, I have worked in small enough companies in which the developers just end up becoming the default IT help desk. I never had any formal training in IT, but most of that kind of IT work can be accomplished with decent enough Google skills. In a way, it worked the same as you and the LLM. I would go poking through settings, run tests to gather info, run commands, and overall just keep trying different solutions until either one worked or it became reasonable to give up. I'm sure many people here have had similar experiences doing the same thing in their own families. I'm not too impressed with an LLM doing that. In this example, it's functionally just improving people's Googling skills.
you're lumping together two very different groups of people and pointing out that their beliefs are incompatible. of course they are! the people who think there is a real threat are generally different people from the ones who want to push AI progress as fast as possible! the people who say both do so generally out of a need to compromise rather than there existing many people who simultaneously hold both views.
I feel this framing in general says more about our attitudes to nuclear weapons than it does about chatbots. The 'Peace Dividend' era which is rapidly drawing to a close has made people careless when they talk about the magnitude of effects a nuclear war would have.
AI can be misused, but it can't be misused to the point an enormously depopulated humanity is forced back into subsistence agriculture to survive, spending centuries if not millennia to get back to where we are now.
I think that's good, but the whole "AI is literally not doing anything", that it's just some mass hallucination has to die. Gamers argue it takes jobs from artists away, programmers seem to have to argue it doesn't actually do anything for some reason. Isn't that telling?
It's not really hard to see... spend your whole life defining yourself around what you do that others can't or won't, then an algorithm comes along which can do a lot of the same. Directly threatens the ego, understandings around self-image and self-worth, as well as future financial prospects (perceived). Along with a heavy dose of change scary, change bad.
Personally, I think the solution is to avoid building your self-image around material things, and to welcome and embrace new tools which always bring new opportunities, but I can see why the polar opposite is a natural reaction for many.
And if AI assisted products are cheaper, and are actually good, then people will have to vote with their wallets. I think we’ve learned that people aren’t very good at doing that with causes they claim to care about once they have to actually part with their money.
There should have been one good game by now. But there isn’t.
By an extremely loud group of activists, as always. I'd wager most gamers don't care one way or the other.
Unless AI is used for code (which it is, surely, almost everywhere), then Gamers don't give a damn. Also, Larian didn't use it for concept art, they used it to generate the first mood board to give to the concept artist as a guideline. And then there is Ark Raiders, who uses AI for all their VO, and that game is a massive hit.
This is just a breathless bubble, the wider gaming audience couldn't give two shits if studios use AI or not.
Btw there was an update on this, larian did an AMA on reddit because of the backlash because the "just moodboard" excuse didn't satisfy many, they are now saying they won't use ai for anything at all:
> We already said this doesn’t mean the actual concept art is generated by AI but we understand it created confusion. So, to ensure there is no room for doubt, we’ve decided to refrain from using genAI tools during concept art development. That way there can be no discussion about the origin of the art.
https://www.ign.com/articles/everything-we-learned-about-div...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1q870w5/larian_studi...
I know LLMs won't vanish again magically, but I wish they would every time I have to deal with their output.
But they don't. Instead, "AI safety" organizations all appear to exclusively warn of unstoppable, apocalyptic, and unprovable harms that seem tuned exclusively to instill fear.
The catastrophic AI risk isn't "oh no, people can now generate pictures of women naked".
In a vacuum, I agree with you that there's probably no harm in AI-generated nudes of fictional women per se; it's the rampant use to sexually harass real women and children[0], while "causing poor air quality and decreasing life expectancy" in Tennessee[1], that bothers me.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f...
[1]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/04/elon-musks-xai-a...
So there will be laws because not everyone can be trusted to host and use this "dangerous", new tech.
And then you have a few "trusted" big tech firms forming an oligopoly of ai, with all of the drawbacks.
That’s exactly what a con is: selling you something as being more than what it actually is. If you agree it’s overhyped by its sellers, you agree it’s a con.
> Current agents can do around 70% of coding stuff I do
LLMs are being sold as capable of significantly more than coding. Focusing on that singular aspect misses the point of the article.
That’s quite a funny take, because I bet you someone will have made that same argument to criticise “crypto-deniers”.
> pretending they're not doing anything clever or useful
That isn’t at all the argument of the article. No one is claiming LLMs are completely useless or that they aren’t interesting technology. The critique is they’re being sold as way more than what they are or could be, that that has tangible negative consequences we can already feel, and the benefits don’t offset it.
> This has, of course, not happened.
This is so incredibly shallow. I can't think of even a single doomer, who ever claimed that AI will destroy us by now. P(doom) is about the likelihood of it destroying us "eventually". And I haven't seen anything in this post or in any recent developments to make my reduce my own p(doom), which is not close to zero.
Here are some representative values: https://pauseai.info/pdoom
And that's the anthropic fallacy. In the worlds where it has happened, the author is dead.
Though I personally hope that we'll have enough of a warning to convince people that there is a problem and give us a fighting chance. I grew up on Terminator and would be really disappointed if the AI kills me in an impersonal way.
While there might be open issues with AI, those AI companies are providing *far* more value than null.
What parallel world are they living in? Every single online platform has been flooded with AI generated content and had to enact counter measures, or went the other way, embraced it and replaced humans with AI. AI use in scams has also become common place.
Everything they warned about with the release of GPT‑2 did in fact happen.
Hm... is it wrong to think like this?
Let’s not forget these innovations are on the heels of COVID. Strong, swift action by government, industry, and individuals against a deadly pathogen is “controversial”. Even if killer AI was here, twice shy…
I’m angry about a lot of things right now, but LLM “marketing” (and inadequate reporting which turns to science fiction instead of science) is not one of them. The LLM revolution is getting shoehorned into this Three Card Monte narrative, and I don’t see the utility.
The criticisms of LLM promise and danger is part of the zeitgeist. If firms are playing off of anything I bet it’s that, and not an industry wide conspiracy to trick the public and customers. Advertising and marketing meets people where they’re at, and “imagines” where they want to go, all wrapped up with the product. It doesn’t make the product frightening. It’s the same for all manner of dangerous technologies—guns, nuclear energy, whatever. The product is the solution to the fear.
> “The LLMs we have today are famously obsequious. The phrase “you’re absolutely right!” may never again be used in earnest.”
Hard NO. I get it, the language patterns of LLMs are creepy, but it’s not bad usage. So, no.
I can handle the cognitive dissonance of computer algorithms spewing out anthropomorphic phrasing and not decide that I, as a human being, can no longer in humility and honesty tell someone else they’re right, and i was wrong.
You have not actually made clear how mechanical calculators were a scam.
Ironically, this article feels like it was written by an LLM. Just a baseless opinion.
> Simply put, these companies have fallen for a confidence trick. They have built on centuries of received wisdom about the efficacy and reliability of computers, and have been drawn in by highly effective salespeople selling scarcely-believable technological wonders.
Calculators are ok, but LLMs are not calculators.
However, the title implies that they were a trick - otherwise why is the "confidence trick" 400 years old?
I feel like this kind of imprecise use of language is what makes it difficult to interact with LLMs in a meaningful way - perhaps that is the reason the author seems to dismiss the value of them.
The 'are LLMs intelligent?' discussion should be retired at this point, too. It's academic, the answer doesn't matter for businesses and consumers; it matters for philosophers (which everyone is even a little bit). 'Are LLMs useful for a great variety of tasks?' is a resounding 'yes'.
