iLoveOncall

The 1GB RPI4 can definitely not be used as a main desktop. I make my son use a Raspberry Pi 5 with 4GB of RAM to code simple stuff for school, and it's barely usable because the UI is extremely laggy.

You are the one making up a situation here.

This has happened every single time for the past year, why are people surprised? This is all so that the new models can look better on the benchmarks.

Isn't that natively supported? I thought you could use your iPhone as side display for your Mac.

EDIT: Yes, the feature is called Sidecar.

It's massively overpowered for most hobbyist embedded applications.

And at $400 it doesn't make sense for it to be. You could buy a much better computer for the same price.

You're right. This isn't even speculations, Blackstone has said that Anthropic will literally be in the "junk" category: https://www.ft.com/content/59383c7f-8d82-493f-bf01-d2e862a10...

> What's weird to me is that you don't see a lot of people making deals that seem way too good to be true

You gotta be kidding. HuggingFace, a website to download files, was sold for 13B.

Sorry, I only have one spot for "funniest shit I read all day", so you only get close second.

What happens when you find a job and don't have time to keep working on the CRM that your father uses for his company, and he inevitably runs into issues or limitations that require new development?

This feels like a very risky move.

> Today, it is known that, when properly prompted, LLMs write better code than humans

Funniest shit I read all day.

> I actually ship way more features in my side projects. Even work wise I have seen projects delivery speed going half or 1/4th of what it used to be.

Again, you are conflating appearance of productivity, with actual productivity.

Are you shipping more features in your side projects because AI is allowing you to ship more features faster (let's assume at the same level of quality), or are you investing more time in shipping features in your side projects, because you FEEL like AI is a productivity booster and therefore you get more out of your time, even if it's not real?

Are projects at work estimated to be a lower cost because of AI productivity increases, or because estimates were too high previously, and you could always deliver at that speed?

For the second point, I'd add that any launch announcement I see at work touting AI gains of 50-75-90% NEVER hold to any sort of scrutiny, so it's also simply, lies? Employees currently are desperate to look good in the eyes of the CEOs pushing for higher AI adoption.

You're entitled to feeling more productive, I'm just saying you likely aren't, or not by very much. Add to that the fact that you didn't like writing code to begin with, it's easy to fall into this sort of falacy.

To be clear, I do use AI, and I do see some productivity gains, but they're not in writing production code (issue management, automation that was too expensive before, generation of code or artifacts that I don't actually care much about, etc.).

We're a greenfield team working on a new piece of software.

My colleagues are all also FAANG software engineers.

> Does you manager also agree you are the most productive engineer in team?

It would seem so.

Additionally, in my mid-year performance review a couple of months ago he specifically mentioned how every metric also looks great.

It seems the only option left is that I'm lying.

In reality, your knee jerk reaction was to be scared and deny that what you have taken as productivity increase was just an illusion, and that you've actively been losing your skills for literally nothing.

Except your job as a software engineer has never been to write code, it has always been to produce software. Whether you do this by using AI or by rolling your head on the keyboard doesn't matter, and nobody cares.

Yeah of course, it's always "you're not prompting it correctly", right?

I understand though, it's hard to feel your skills atrophy in real time while at the same time realizing that the data shows your productivity has in fact not increased at all.

You don't need to use LLMs for coding to stay "competitive" with your colleagues.

I work for a FAANG, we have unlimited AI credits to be used on any model we want, with basically any tooling we want.

My whole team massively uses AI, I barely do. I use not even 10% of the tokens that they do. Yet I have not only the highest rate of PRs raised, but also the highest rate of PRs I reviewed, and the second lowest number of revisions per PR.

AI is all about fake productivity. You feel productive while you're achieving the same, if not less (or even often, nothing at all).

Long term it's pretty obvious that people heavily using AI will become a lot less productive, if not simply unable to work as software engineers. My colleagues are already scared.

In fact, as a challenge to anyone who says they "haven't written a line of code by hand in X amount of time", go do a test. Try to write any code without any LLM use for just 30 minutes.

Yeah and soon we'll discover it's because they calculate the cost of inference as near 0 because they use AWS / NVidia / etc. credits that they got "for free" (aka investments from those companies) instead of paying for them, or some other accounting bullshit.

You wanna know the real price? It's easy, just check what AWS, GCP or Azure charge for tokens.

If you're gonna go the extra mile and use an AI-powered system to be able to cross-check data more in depth than a run of the mill report from your bank, it means you want 100% accuracy, not 90%.

Feeling productive while achieving nothing.

If you don't care to that level then why not put your finger in the air and just come up with a made up estimate yourself?

Then you need to double check all the results because LLMs can't be trusted to accurately select retail stores or deductible purchases.

Are we still using "you're not prompting it right" in 2026? Lol.

You're not using LLMs at all or not auditing anything if you don't see them making major mistakes on basic things every day multiple times a day.

I just can't understand that anyone is seriously thinking that AI is improving the situation when it comes to tech debt instead of making it way worse.

For every bug or security issue it fixes, it creates 10 more.

Imagine thinking that the look of a website is the right metric to judge the performance of AI models.

> the gains showed up when tokens stopped being rationed

My whole company (Amazon) has unlimited tokens, and the only thing it has led to is insane amounts of slop. Illusion of productivity.

The brand I associate with Ubuntu over Debian is increased RAM usage and extremely low performance of the UI.

> Our next project is to eliminate all 3rd party dependencies, and after that to rebuild our frontends completely using zero frameworks, not touching npm ever again after that.

What's the proportion of bugs you've encountered that was due to a library versus due to your own code? I suspect it's probably more than 1:1000.

This is a stupid decision.

Call it what it is: slop.

It has zero intrinsic value beyond the headline. The whole goal is to market LLMs if the result is successful.

Why are russian bots always so easy to spot?

Seems pretty obvious to me that it's not going to be 80 academics debating everything under the sun, but instead dedicated groups focusing on their expertise area...

It doesn't matter but CEOs are dumb fucks. Ask this guy how HE uses AI and you'll see he most likely doesn't. They don't understand how anything their company develops works.

Usually that would be fine if reporting lines were healthy, but in the AI age with top-down mandates they're not.