I mean they've boasted[1] about their generated code being so good that they add basically zero value and that they're riding out the rentseeking for as long as possible.
Meanwhile they've apparently played with LLM porting of Postgres (or Postgres features?) and "would not put it in production"[2], so we can also guess the kind and scope of features being discussed here.
They're not "adding no value", the SLA is the value. I have a business problem, and I pay you to solve it and support your solution for me, is a completely different proposition than standing up your own solution as a non-technical org and maintaining it.
> They're not "adding no value", the SLA is the value
The code their Astra+Fable setup, automatically generated from requests customers leave in voicemails, is apparently so good they never correct it. If the stories being woven are true, the SLA is literally just a middleman's 100k cut.
At the very least there might be some particulars here that aren't universally applicable.
The second was just for fun; it is fun. This is very far from the code we roll out at customers though. We build LoB apps which are basically crud apps (they are not but most here would call it that).
We can have fun and make money right? Possibly at the same time but not in that case.
> The second was just for fun; it is fun. This is very far from the code we roll out at customers though.
Which is fine, great even (I do the same thing!), but in trying different things outside your day job, it seems like you do understand why people working on different things than you might be "reporting all these negative AI experiences"?
It's a pretty bad sign when you need to resort to this kind of comment stalking to try to find ammunition for a general argument. This user could be a complete con man, and it still wouldn't invalidate the core thesis of LLMs providing business value.
> you need to resort to this kind of comment stalking to try to find ammunition for a general argument
It's not a general argument, they made specific claims, but vague posted (and implying everyone else must be crazy) to the point that the conversation is derailed by a bunch of people trying to figure out what they meant.
> it still wouldn't invalidate the core thesis of LLMs providing business value.
lol, no, "providing business value" is not what was claimed:
>> What are people here doing exactly that they are not riding the gravy train and even reporting all these negative AI experiences?
Meanwhile they've apparently played with LLM porting of Postgres (or Postgres features?) and "would not put it in production"[2], so we can also guess the kind and scope of features being discussed here.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49594498
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48855951