I struggle to believe that a ton of seemingly intelligent software engineers are too dumb to figure out how to use Claude code to get reliable results, it seems much more likely to me that it can do well at isolated tasks or new projects but fails when pointed at large complex code bases because it just... is a token predictor lol.
But yeah spinning up a green fields project in an extensively solved area (ledgers) is going to be something an AI shines at.
It isn't like we don't use this stuff also, I ask Cursor to do things 20x a day and it does something I don't like 50% of the time. Even things like pasting an error message it struggles with. How do I reconcile my actual daily experience with hype messages I see online?
Many software devs work in teams on large projects where LLMs have a more nuanced value. I myself mostly work on a large project inside a large organization. Spitting out lines of code is practically never a bottleneck for me. Running a suite of agents to generate out a ton of code for my coworkers to review doesn't really solve a problem that I have. I still use Claude in other ways and find it useful, but I'm certainly not 10x more productive with it.
I couldn't disagree with this more. It's impressive at building demos, but asking it to build the foundation for a long-term project has been disastrous in my experience.
When you have an established project and you're asking it to color between the lines it can do that well (most of the time), but when you give it a blank canvas and a lot of autonomy it will likely end up generating crap code at a staggering pace. It becomes a constant fight against entropy where every mess you don't clean up immediately gets picked up as "the way things should be done" the next time.
Before someone asks, this is my experience with both Claude Code (Sonnet/Opus 4.6) and Codex (GPT 5.4).
So it's not that they're too stupid. There are various motivations for this: clinging on to familiarity, resistance to what feels like yet another tool, anti-AI koolaid, earnestly underwhelmed but don't understand how much better it can be, reacting to what they perceive to be incessant cheerleading, etc.
It's kind of like anti-Javascript posts on HN 10+ years ago. These people weren't too stupid to understand how you could steelman Node.js, they just weren't curious enough to ask, and maybe it turned out they hadn't even used Javascript since "DHTML" was a term except to do $(".box").toggle().
I wish there were more curiosity on HN.
Hypothetically, you have a simple slice out of bounds error because a function is getting an empty string so it does something like: `""[5]`.
Opus will add a bunch of length & nil checks to "fix" this, but the actual issue is the string should never be empty. The nil checks are just papering over a deeper issue, like you probably need a schema level check for minimum string length.
At that point do you just tell it like "no delete all that, the string should never be empty" and let it figure that out, or do I basically need to pseudo code "add a check for empty strings to this file on line 145", or do I just YOLO and know the issue is gone now so it is no longer my problem?
My bigger point is how does an LLM know that this seemingly small problem is indicative of some larger failure, like lets say this string is a `user.username` which means users can set their name to empty which means an entire migration is probably necessary. All the AI is going to do is smoosh the error messages and kick the can.
Seemingly is doing the heavy lifting here. If you read enough comment threads on HN, it will become obvious why they aren’t getting results.
They're not dumb, but I'm not surprised they're struggling.
A developer's mindset has to change when adding AI into the mix, and many developers either can’t or won’t do that. Developers whose commits that look something like "Fixed some bugs" probably aren’t going to take the time to write a decent prompt either.
Whenever there's a technology shift, there are always people who can't or won't adapt. And let's be honest, there are folks whose agenda (consciously or not) is to keep the status quo and "prove" that AI is a bad thing.
No wonder we're seeing wildly different stories about the effectiveness of coding agents.
One is that they tried AI-based coding a year or two ago, came to the IMHO completely correct at that time conclusion that it was nearly useless, and have not tried it since then to see that the situation has changed. To which the solution is, try it again. It changed a lot.
The other are those who have incorporated into their personal identity that they hate AI and will never use it. I have seen people do things like fire AI at a task they have good reasons to believe it will fail at, and when it does, project that out to all tasks without letting themselves consciously realize that picking a bad task on purpose skews the deck.
To those people my solution is to encourage them to hold on to their skepticism. I try to hold on to it as well despite the incredible cognitive temptation not to. It is very useful. But at the same time... yeah, there was a step change in the past year or so. It has gotten a lot more useful...
... but a lot of that utility is in ways that don't obviate skilled senior coding skills. It likes to write scripting code without strong types. Since the last time I wrote that, I have in fact used it in a situation where there were enough strong types that it spontaneously originated some, but it still tends to write scripting code out of that context no matter what language it is working in. It is good at very straight-line solutions to code but I rarely see it suggest using databases, or event sourcing, or a message bus, or any of a lot of other things... it has a lot of Not Invented Here syndrome where it instead bashes out some minimal solution that passes the unit tests with flying colors but can't be deployed at scale. No matter how much documentation a project has it often ends up duplicating code just because the context window is only so large and it doesn't necessarily know where the duplicated code might be. There's all sorts of ways it still needs help to produce good output.
I also wonder how many people are failing to prompt it enough. Some of my prompts are basically "take this and do that and write a function to log the error", but a lot of my prompts are a screen or two of relevant context of the project, what it is we are trying to do, why the obvious solution doesn't work, here's some other code to look at, here's the relevant bugs and some Wiki documentation on the planning of the project, we should use {event sourcing/immutable trees/stored procedures/whatever}, interact with me for questions before starting anything. This is not a complete explanation of what they are doing anymore, but there's still a lot of ways in which what an LLM can really do is style transfer... it is just taking "take this and do that and write a function to log the error" and style-transforming that into source code. If you want it to do something interesting it really helps to give it enough information in the first place for the "style transfer" to get a hold of and do something with. Don't feel silly "explaining it to a computer", you're giving the function enough data to operate on.
But not being one leg in the code myself is not something I am comfortable with. It starts feeling like management and not development. I really feel the abdication very strongly and it makes me unable and unwilling to put a hard stamp on quality. I have seen too much hallucination or half missed requirements to put that much trust in AI.
It's the same with code reviews of hard tickets. You can scroll past and just approve, but do you really understand what your colleague has built? Are you really in the driver's seat? It feels to me like YOLOing with major consequences.
I dont but, at all that people doing 20x output have any idea what they are coding. They are just pressing the yolo button and no one, not the engineer, not the AI and not management is in the driver's seat. it is a very scary time.
