- I’m not sure you’re going to get any useful results from this question.
Some people find it useful, some people don’t, and unless what you’re using it for matches what they’re using it for (which you’re not asking) none of the results you get give you any insight into what you should expect for your use case.
Oh well, whatever. Here’s my $0.02; on a large code base that takes up to 30 minutes to do a local type check in typescript, the net benefit of AI is neutral or negative, because the agent can’t loop effectively and check it’s own results.
AI scaffolded results are largely irrelevant and don’t use internal design system components or tokens for UI and are generally useless.
Objectively measured ticket completion rates are not meaningfully impacted by the use of AI.
Out of date documentation leads agents to build incorrect solutions using outdated and depreciated techniques and services.
This is true across multiple tools and multiple models used, including sota.
1x
It is not more productive.
This reflects on my personal experience in the last 8 months of intense (and company mandated) AI usage at work.
At home, for small personal projects, I would say it’s closer to the 2x you describe, maybe as much as 3x for building and iterating on rich web UI using react.
- > There's a pattern here that's bigger than FFmpeg
Why are you turning this into a discussion about China?
Its not about china.
Its about stealing.
Its not a complex, or western concept.
- Strawman.
Imaginary situation: People are using claude instead of cursor, and you can run claude in a terminal, so this is going back to the days of not using an IDE for the people that do it.
Straw man shake down: Terminal based development like vim and emacs are old and shit, and we moved away from that for a reason, and so (although totally unrelated) this means 'using claude' means going back to using a terminal for everything, which is similarly old and shit.
...but, obviously wrong.
- There's a claude desktop app that isn't done via the terminal.
- Agents use the terminal/powershell to do lots of things, even in cursor because that's the only way to automate some things, eg. running tests.
- Terminal environments like vim and emacs are ides. :face-palm:
- It literally makes no difference what interface you copy and paste your text prompt into and then walk off to get a coffee in agent mode.
Anyone who's seriously arguing that IDE integrated LLM chat windows somehow beat command line LLM chat windows is either a) religiously opposed to the terminal window, or b) hasn't actually tried using the tools.
...because, you'll find it makes no difference at all.
Why is cursor getting involved with graphite? ...because the one place where is makes a difference is reviewing code, where most CLI based tools (eg. `git diff`) are just generally inferior to visual integrated code review tools.
You know what that is?
An acknowledgement that cursor, in terms of code generation has nothing that qualifies as the 'special sauce' to use it over any other tool. CLI or not.
So they're investing in another company that actually has a good, meaningful product.
- > I have zero knowledge of k8s, helm or configmaps
…
> I vouch for the code that I write or that I delegate to an LLM, and believe it or not it doesn't take a magician to write a k8s spec file…
I have been writing code since 1995.
That has zero relevance to my skill at rolling out deployments in a technology I know nothing about.
One of the two things you’ve said is false:
Either a) you do know what you’re talking about, or b) you are not confident in the results.
It can’t be both.
It sounds to me like you’re subscribed heavily into a hype train; that’s fine, but your position, as described, leaves a lot to desired, if you’re trying to describe some wide trend.
Here my anecdote: major cloudflare outages.
Hard things are hard. AI doesn’t solve that. Scaffolding is easy; ai can solve that.
Scaffolding is a reliable thing to rely on with ai.
Doing it for K8s configuration, if you don’t know k8s is stupid. I know what I’m talking about when I say that. Having it help you if you do know what you’re doing is perfectly legit.
Claiming it did help when claiming you have, and I quote, “zero knowledge” (but you actually do) is hype. Leave it on LinkedIn dude. :(
- The irony of this paper is that the part that isn't geographic (towns, roads, fields, etc) which have non-random ordered structure are the parts that are most suitable for this approach.
- > Also is this entirely flat?
Yes.
The output in this case is a 90m heightmap (ie. 2d grayscale image).
- Mm. This paper makes it hard to understand what they've done.
For example:
> MultiDiffusion remains confined to bounded domains: all windows must lie within a fixed finite canvas, limiting its applicability to unbounded worlds or continuously streamed environments.
> We introduce InfiniteDiffusion, an extension of MultiDiffusion that lifts this constraint. By reformulating the sampling process to operate over an effectively infinite domain, InfiniteDiffusion supports seamless, consistent generation at scale.
…but:
> The hierarchy begins with a coarse planetary model, which generates the basic structure of the world from a rough, procedural or user-provided layout. The next stage is the core latent diffusion model, which transforms that structure into realistic 46km tiles in latent space. Finally, a consistency decoder expands these latents into a high-fidelity elevation map.
So, the novel thing here is slightly better seemless diffusion image gen.
…but, we generate using a heirsrchy based on a procedural layout.
So basocally, tldr: take perlin noise, resize it, and then image-2-image use it as a seed to generate detailed tiles?
People have already been doing this.
Its not novel.
The novel part here is making the detailed tiles slightly nicer.
Eh. :shrug:
The paper obfuscates this, quite annoyingly.
Its unclear to me why you cant just use multi diffusion for this, given your top level input is already bounded (eg. User input) and not infinite.
- Yeah nah.
People posting stuff like this are clearly not doing it; they’re reading LinkedIn posts, toying with the tech and projecting what it looks like at scale.
That’s fair; but it’s also misguided.
Either try it yourself, or go and watch people (eg. @ArminRonacher) doing this at a reasonable scale and you can ground yourself in reality, instead of hype.
The tldr is: currently it doesn’t scale.
Not personally. Not at Microsoft. Not at $AI company.
Currently, as the “don’t change existing behaviour” constraint list goes up, the unsupervised agent capability goes down, and since most companies / individual devs don’t appreciate “help” that does something while breaking something else, this causes a significant hole in the “everyone can 10x” bed time story.
As mentioned in other threads; the cost and effort to produce new code is down, but the cost of producing usable code is, I guess, moderately on par with existing scaffolding tools.
Some domains where the constraints are more relaxed like image generation (no hands? Who cares?) and front end code (wrong styles? Not consistent? Who cares?) are genuinely experiencing a revolution like the OP was talking about.
…but generalising it to “all coding” appears to be like the self driving car problem.
Solvable? Probably.
…but a bit harder than people who don’t understands or haven’t tried to solve it themselves thought, or blogged about or speculated about.
Probably, there’s a much smaller set of problems that are much easier to solve… but it’s not happening in 2026; certainly not at the scale and rate the OP was describing.
You’ll notice, neither of us have self driving cars yet.
(Despite some companies providing cars that do drive themselves into things from time to time, but that’s always “user error” as I understand it…)
- If claude code starts having ads for bun in the code it generates, I am never using it again.
To some degree have “opinionated views on tech stacks” is unavoidable in LLMs, but this seems like it moves us towards a horrible future.
Imagine if claude (or gemini) let you as a business pay to “prefer” certain tech in generated code?
Its google ads all over again.
The thing is, if they own bun, and they want people to use bun, how can they justify not preferencing it on the server side?
…and once one team does it… game on!
It just seems like a sucky future, that is now going to be unavoidable.
- > And most importantly, you modify the work just like the creators modify the work
Emphasis mine.
Weights are not open source.
You can define terms to mean whatever you want, but fundametally if you cannot modify the “output” the way the original creators could, its not in the spirit of open source.
Isnt that literally what you said?
How can you possibly claim both that a) you can modify it the creators did, b) thats all you need to be open source, but…
Also c) the categorically incorrect assertion that the weights allow you to do this?
Whatever, I guess, but your argument is logically wrong, and philosophically flawed.
- Skill declines over time, without practice.
If you speak fluent japanese, and you dont practice, you will remember being fluent but no longer actually be able to speak fluently.
Its true for many things; writing code is not like riding a bike.
You cant not write code for a year and then come back at the same skill level.
Using an agent is not writing code; but using an agent effectively requires that you have the skill of writing code.
So, after using a tool that automatically writes code for you, that you probably give some superficial review to, you will find, over time, that you are worse at coding.
You can sigh and shake your head and stamp your feet and disagree, but its flat out a fact of life:
If you dont practice, you lose skill.
I, personally found, this happening, so I now do 50/50 time: 1 week with AI, 1 week with strictly no AI.
If the no AI week “feels hard” then I extend it for another week, to make sure I retain the skills I feel I should have.
Anecdotally, here at $corp, I see people struggling because they are offloading the “make an initial plan to do x that I can review” step too much, and losing the ability to plan software effectively.
Dont be that guy.
If you offload all your responsibilities to an agent and sit playing with your phone, you are making yourself entirely replacable.
- Hmmm… firebase clones are many and varied.
Whats special about this one?
Being a single file binary doesnt impress me; thats true of many projects in many langauges.
It seems nice you can use it as a go framework if you happen to use go, but Im not really compelled by the “it doesn't scale at all” aspects of it.
Someone whos used some other similar stuff comment on why this over any of the others, eg. self hosted superbase?
- > I just don't like how they have to put out false claims like there are big problems with GH CI and Sponsors
These aren't false claims.
Thats my point.
Microsoft can afford to make these tools better; they just dont care.
Yes, its better than having nothing, but honestly you have to be wearing blinkers not to see the decline rn.
- Oh come on.
Micros$$$$ft owns github.
We don't need to give some pretend sympathy.
When you can afford to have good things, and you're not, don't come crying about getting called bad names.
Actions is bad.
> I dare anyone who is delusional enough to think they can create something better to actually make something better
Actions speak louder than words.
Zig is leaving because of the issues they mentioned.
> People tried other services like GitLab and realized it is slower, uglier and overall worse than GH and came crawling back.
Maybe. I guess we'll see.
I think the OP has been pretty clear that they're not happy with it, and, they're putting their money where their mouth is.
Clearly, just complaining about broken things isn't working.
Maybe a couple more big moves like this is what GH needs to wake up and allocate some more resources (that they, can categorically afford) to fixing things.
- > I never really understood why you have to stuff all the tools in the context.
You probably don't for... like, trivial cases?
...but, tool use is the most fine grained point, usually, in an agent's step-by-step implementation plan; So when planning, if you don't know what tool definitions exist, an agent might end up solving a problem naively step-by-step using primitive operations, when a single tool already exists that does that, or does part of it.
Like, it's not quite as simple as "Hey, do X"
It's more like: "Hey, make a plan to do X. When you're planning, first fetch a big list of the tools that seem vaguely related to the task and make a step-by-step plan keeping in mind the tools available to you"
...and then, for each step in the plan, you can do a tool search to find the best tool for x, then invoke it.
Without a top level context of the tools, or tool categories, I think you'll end up in some dead-ends with agents trying to use very low level tools to do high level tasks and just spinning.
The higher level your tool definitions are, the worse the problem is.
I've found this is the case even now with MCP, where sometimes you have to explicitly tell an agent to use particular tools, not to try to re-invent stuff or use bash commands.
- An, the dream, a cross platform App Store you can install apps into any client application that supports MCP, but is open, free and agentic.
It’s basically a “web App Store” and we side step the existing app stores (and their content guidelines, security restrictions and billing requirements) because it’s all done via a mega app (the MCP client).
How could it go wrong?
If only someone had done this before, we wouldnt be stuck in Apples, etc’s walled gardens…
Seriously though; honest question: this is literally circumventing platform requirements to use the platform app stores. How do you imagine this is going to be allowed?
Is ChatGPT really big enough they can pull the “we’re gonna do it, watcha gonna do?” to Apple?
Who’s going to curate this app store so non technical users (the explicitly stated audience) can discover these MCP apps?
It feels like MCP itself; half baked. Overly ambitious. “We’ll figure the details out later”
- Hm.
Its an easy trap to fall into to say that people are in hard situations because They Arent Trying Hard Enough.
Your manager might think so.
Your company probably thinks youre not trying hard enough.
…but, there is a also reality, which is overloading people with impossible expectations and then watching them fail isnt helpful.
Its not a learning experience.
Its just mean, and selfish… even when those expectations are, perhaps, self imposed.
If youre in one of these situations, you should ask for help.
If you see someone in them, you should offer to help.
Its well documented that gifted children struggle as adults because they struggle under the weigh of expectations.
The soltuion to this is extremely rarey self reflection about not trying hard enough.
Geez. Talk about setting people up for failure.
The OP literally succeeded by asking for help, yet somehow, walked away with no appreciation of it.
- Mmm.
Youre doing two things:
1) youre moving state into an arbitrary untrusted easy to modify location.
2) youre allowing users to “deep link” into a page that is deep inside some funnel that may or may not be valid, or even exist at some future point in time, forget skipping the messages/whatever further up.
You probably dont want to do either of those two things.
- Claude is just better at coding than cursor.
Really, the interface isn't a meaningful part of it. I also like cmd-L, but claude just does better at writing code.
...also, it's nice that Anthropic is just focusing on making cool stuff (like skills), while the folk from cursor are... I dunno. Whatever it is they're doing with cursor 2.0 :shrug:
Here's a quick history lesson (as I understand it):
- QtWidgets the original C++ QT graphics library.
- Around 2008 or something, they introduced QML and QtQuick. This was basically declarative UI + javascript for logic.
- QtWidgets is considered 'done' and all new features and dev is basically happening in QML / QtQuick.
- ...as described in this post, the current recommended 'best practice' is to avoid writing a pile of javascript spaghetti and bridge between C++ for logic and QML for UI.
So, long story short: We've moved from a robust C++ framework, to a javascript backed framework to 'appeal to the masses', but it's kind of rubbish in practice, and so best practice is to go back and write your logic in C++.
Does that seem weird to anyone else?
> While powerful, Qt Widgets lack some essential modern features, in my opinion, such as declarative UI, bindings, behaviors, anchors, and more. These features enable the creation of beautiful, animated UIs simply and quickly, as seen in QML.
Hum. QML is certainly declarative.
I'd love to see a breakdown of specifically what features you can't do with widgets, and why having a js <-> c++ bridge is better than not having one.
Having to bridge your UI actions across language boundaries is massive pain in the ass right? Don't you really need good reasons to make it worth doing that?
Couldn't you do the the same thing with react native components and logic in C++? (You could)
[1] - https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/qtqml-cppintegration-overview.html