LLM Inevitabilism

If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is we can't wish it away.

Feels somewhat like a self fulfilling prophecy though. Big tech companies jam “AI” in every product crevice they can find… “see how widely it’s used? It’s inevitable!”

I agree that AI is inevitable. But there’s such a level of groupthink about it at the moment that everything is manifested as an agentic text box. I’m looking forward to discovering what comes after everyone moves on from that.

We haven't even barely extracted the value from the current generation of SOTA models. I would estimate less then 0.1% of the possible economic benefit is currently extracted, even if the tech effectively stood still.

That is what I find so wild about the current conversation and debate. I have claude code toiling away building my personal organization software right now that uses LLMs to take unstructured input and create my personal plans/project/tasks/etc.

I keep hearing this over and over. Some llm toiling away coding personal side projects, and utilities. Source code never shared, usually because it’s “too specific to my needs”. This is the code version of slop.

When someone uses an agent to increase their productivity by 10x in a real, production codebase that people actually get paid to work on, that will start to validate the hype. I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence of it, in fact we’ve seen the opposite.

100% agree. I have so much trouble squaring my experience with the hype and the grandparent post here.

The types of tasks I have been putting Claude Code to work on are iterative changes on a medium complexity code base. I have an extensive Claude.md. I write detailed PRDs. I use planning mode to plan the implementation with Claude. After a bunch of iteration I end up with nicely detailed checklists that take quite a lot of time to develop but look like a decent plan for implementation. I turn Claude (Opus) loose and religiously babysit it as it goes through the implementation.

Less than 50% of the time I end up with something that compiles. Despite spending hundreds of thousands of tokens while Claude desperately throws stuff against the wall trying to make it work.

I end up spending as much time as it would have taken just to write it to get through this process AND then do a meticulous line by line review where I typically find quite a lot to fix. I really can't form a strong opinion about the efficiency of this whole thing. It's possible this is faster. It's possible that it's not. It's definitely very high variance.

I am getting better at pattern matching on things AI will do competently. But it's not a long list and it's not much of the work I actually do in a day. Really the biggest benefit is that I end up with better documentation because I generated all of that to try and make the whole thing actually work in the first place.

Either I am doing something wrong, the work that AI excels at looks very different than mine, or people are just lying.