←back to thread

190 points arittr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.339s | source
Show context
antirez ◴[] 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 #
ipnon ◴[] No.44003232[source]
I don't think they are targeting software engineers as users. They are seeking those on the software engineering margins, users who know what Python and for-loops are but don't care to configure Aider and review each of the overwhelming number of models released daily. They want to tell the editor to add function foo to bar.py. I suspect this latter market segment is much larger than the former!
replies(1): >>44054886 #
1. _hcuq ◴[] No.44054886[source]
When I got my first job in 1986, the company had a tool that allowed non engineers to write code. Of course it didn't work. They could write code, but it ended up as a buggy, unreliable, unmaintainable mess. It turned out it was a good sales tool, get our technology into the company, then we would get paid to write the programs.

Then the were the the MS Access and Excel amateur efforts. I worked at a company that for years had a very profitable business replacing in house MS Access spaghetti with our well designed application.

Aaaand..... here we go.... deja vu all over again....