←back to thread

Windsurf SWE-1: Our First Frontier Models

(windsurf.com)
190 points arittr | 4 comments | 15 May 25 18:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.87s | source
Show context
antirez ◴[16 May 25 08:56 UTC] No.44003190[source]▶
So because they need to have a better business model, they will try to move users to weaker models compared to the best available? This "AI inside the editor" thing makes every day less sense in many dimensions: it makes you not really capable of escaping the accept, accept, accept trap. It makes the design interaction with the LLM too much about code and too little about the design itself. And you can't do what many of us do: have that three subscriptions for the top LLMs available (it's 60$ for 3, after all) and use each for it's best. And by default write your stuff without help if LLMs are not needed in a given moment.
replies(8): >>44003218 #>>44003232 #>>44003442 #>>44003514 #>>44004509 #>>44006515 #>>44007143 #>>44007522 #
1. infecto ◴[16 May 25 12:16 UTC] No.44004509[source]▶
You’ve got a couple of ideas colliding here, let me try to unpack them.

First, most of the major players already have their own models or have been developing them for some time. Your take feels a bit reductive. Take Windsurf pre-acquisition, for example, their risk was being too tightly coupled to third-party vendors. It’s only logical to assume that building task- or language-specific models will ultimately help reduce costs and offer more control.

As for the other point: in my experience, trying to fully leverage LLMs actually makes me more prescriptive in my designs. I spend more time thinking through architecture and making my code modular, more so than when I wasn’t using an LLM. I’m sure others may design less or take shortcuts, but for me it’s pushed the opposite behavior. Is it the “right” way? I’m not sure, but I’m enjoying it and staying productive.

replies(1): >>44006034 #
2. phillipcarter ◴[16 May 25 14:37 UTC] No.44006034[source]▶
I think the point is that the UX favors accepting code changes as the primary action, rather than using the chat interface as an ideation tool. It's quite valid, because as a user of all these tools, Winsurf and Cursor very much do try to make you slap the Accept button uncritically!
replies(1): >>44006514 #
3. infecto ◴[16 May 25 15:18 UTC] No.44006514[source]▶
Does it though? I use the chat option quite a bit in the tools. The only UX that favors accept pattern is tab which makes sense.
replies(1): >>44008568 #
4. phillipcarter ◴[16 May 25 18:37 UTC] No.44008568{3}[source]▶
It does. Defaults matter, and the defaults for these tools are agent mode with code changes meant to be accepted, rather than forcing you to read the code and manually apply those changes.

Note: I'm not saying that's a bad thing! It's significantly more convenient for many use cases, so I can see why it's a default. But the incentive being created is to accept first, analyze later.