←back to thread

Coding with LLMs in the summer of 2025 – an update

(antirez.com)
600 points antirez | 1 comments | 20 Jul 25 11:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bgwalter ◴[20 Jul 25 13:59 UTC] No.44625261[source]▶
Translation: His company will launch "AI" products in order to get funding or better compete with Valkey.

I find it very sad that people who have been really productive without "AI" now go out of their way to find small anecdotal evidence for "AI".

replies(2): >>44625432 #>>44625574 #
brokencode ◴[20 Jul 25 14:18 UTC] No.44625432[source]▶
I find it even more sad when people come out of the woodwork on every LLM post to tell us that our positive experiences using LLMs are imagined and we just haven’t realized how bad they are yet.
replies(4): >>44625504 #>>44625551 #>>44625771 #>>44625799 #
cratermoon ◴[20 Jul 25 14:56 UTC] No.44625771[source]▶
We don't just tell you they were imagined, we can provide receipts.

https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

replies(3): >>44625900 #>>44627683 #>>44629513 #
nojito ◴[20 Jul 25 15:08 UTC] No.44625900[source]▶
Cursor is an old way of using LLMs.

Not to mention in the study less than 1/2 have ever used it before the study.

replies(1): >>44625959 #
roywiggins ◴[20 Jul 25 15:15 UTC] No.44625959[source]▶
The AI tooling churn is so fast that by the time a study comes out people will be able to say "well they were using an older tool" no matter what tool that the study used.
replies(4): >>44625995 #>>44626051 #>>44630751 #>>44630786 #
1. bubblyworld ◴[21 Jul 25 00:39 UTC] No.44630751[source]▶
What is the problem with this, exactly? It's a valid criticism of the study (when applied to current agentic coding practices). That the pace of progress is so fast sucks for researchers, in some sense, but this is the reality right now.