> I am still trying to sort out why experiences are so divergent. I've had much more positive LLM experiences while coding than many other people seem to, even as someone who's deeply skeptical of what's being promised about them. I don't know how to reconcile the two.

I am also trying to sort this out, but I'm probably someone you'd consider to be on the other, "anti-LLM" side.

I wonder if part of this is simply level of patience, or, similarly, having a work environment that's chill enough to allow for experimentation?

From my admittedly short attempts to use agentic coding so far, I usually give up pretty quickly because I experience, as others in the thread described, the agent just spinning its wheels or going off and mangling the codebase like a lawnmower.

Now, I could totally see a scenario where if I spent time tweaking prompts, writing rule files, and experimenting with different models, I could improve that output significantly. But this is being sold to me as a productivity tool. I've got code to write, and I'm pretty sure I can write it fairly quickly myself, and I simply don't have time at my start up to muck around with babysitting an AI all day -- I have human junior engineers that need babysitting.

I feel like I need to be a lot more inspired that the current models can actually improve my productivity in order to spend the time required to get there. Maybe that's a chicken-or-egg problem, but that's how it is.