2026-09-29 14:28 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2026-09-29 14:33
Dude, come on - what are you actually trying to accomplish here? All you’re doing is throwing a tantrum because people don’t agree with you, and that’s pretty unpleasant behavior.
-
@Feyd@programming.dev 2026-09-29 14:38
I have tinkered with it, and I’ve also had to deal with coworkers using it. I have actual work to do instead of playing with toys that make my job harder.
-
@jj4211@lemmy.world 2026-09-29 16:09
The problem is that every time, in the moment, people advocate and then when it comes up short, come back with “Oh, you did XYZ 3.2? Yeah that’s busted, 3.3 can really do it” and rinse and repeat and it’s hard to take that argument credibly when it’s a treadmill of dissing yesterday’s tech but swearing today’s is different. The current best of breed I have very limited exposure to (too rich for my blood), but it didn’t seem overwhelmingly a slam dunk in my interaction. Incremental value going from more modest models to those don’t seem to justify the price tag. And every developer that is merely curating fully agentic workflow I have dealt with has pretty shit functionality and no idea what the hell they are doing. Whatever the rhetoric is, the results are just utter shit. Somewhat better if the problem domain can be infinitely retried without consequence with results that can be perfectly verified to let it drive eternal retries (while burning through token budget), but generally I just see pretty shit software. On the other hand, a lot of these groups that I say has pretty shit AI software formerly had pretty shit normal software. Problem being clueless management now thinking they must be smart because they say things more aligned to the AI hype.