As an employee: your taxes are not that high, but public services are terrible so most of middle-class ends up paying for the private alternative as well.
As a business owner: not so bad if you are a freelancing or just a few business partners providing some type of service, but terrible the moment you start considering employing other people.
I live in Germany. No such thing as public hospitals. And I pay close to 1200€/month in health insurance to the public insurance company.
I quick visit to the dermatologist to check for some tiny bumps that showed up in my forehead: 60€, out of pocket, because the insurer doesn't cover it.
Sad to hear about that. Ireland is much better in that regard - you can pay for private healthcare and it'll provide you a broader network, but you might as well go for public health, where you'll be prioritized based on how life-threatening is your condition.
Yeah, I make it sound worse than it seems. The problem of the public insurance is that you pay based on your revenue instead of your actuarial risk, so in the end it should be treated as an extra form of revenue tax. I could go for the private insurance if I wanted to pay less, but then I'd have to switch my kids to the private insurer as well.
All in all, my point was only that the amount of taxes that people pay and quality of services are not necessarily related. Germany has high taxes and expensive-but-adequate healthcare. Greece has high taxes and expensive-and-inadequate healthcare. Switzerland has low taxes and universal/cheap healthcare (max. $5000/year deductible, max charge per hospitalization of $700).
I don't entirely disagree with your sentiment, but context and scale matters. The damage a corrupt institution can make is far bigger than some "bad" individual can do on their own.
I read that as: SACD customers expect a better mix.
The format is only relevant in that it requires audiophile level dedication and money to use the format in the first place. Not dissimilar to vinyl before its recent boom.
I have an SACD setup, but for what I want to listen to, everything is out of print and secondary market is insane. Players can be found relatively cheaply at thrift stores (many don’t bluray and multi-CD carousels support it with digital output).
I find it works as focus when the tasks are all related/in the same repo. Not the same as single-task flow state of old style coding, but also still a kind of flow
The problem is that this approach is not sustainable. Errors compound. The cost to fix one issue might seem small at first, but over a stretch of time all these "oopsies" become architectural spaghetti that can only be fixed with a complete rewrite, which will certainly become more expensive than getting the code "organically" developed.
The only way I see AI coding working in the long run is if we go back to a Waterfall/BDUF process and having actual engineering. Let engineers really own the architecture. Enforce that any new feature - no matter how small - to be specced out with complete sequence diagrams. Ensure that every new software package needs to be put on an UML component diagram for the team to review and see each addition interacts with the whole system, etc.
If we do that, then we can just give all the documents to a coding agent and say "go ahead and implement this" with a minimal amount of confidence. But in doing this, I bet we will realize the following:
- the "effort" has never been about writing code itself. The code is just the material manifest of all the thought that went to think over a solution into the problems that the product is attempting to solve.
- we will likely be better off by using code generation tools (i.e, UML-to-code) and a "weak" LLM (than can run locally) than by playing the token lottery at the Anthropic Casino.
I mirror your thoughts. I think we'll end up with "perfect map" paradox = you cannot be vague or indecisive on what you want (and if you are then these decisions don't matter) and you're creating a 1:1 representation of what the code needs to be.
I'd substitute "owner" for the team and in that sense the owner will not need to be human.
We're at this state where Claude is great at doing the "middle" part of work, but it's crap at gathering requirements and verification of what it has done. I also don't see people caring about these aspects of software development as shown in the article
> The problem is that this approach is not sustainable. Errors compound. The cost to fix one issue might seem small at first, but over a stretch of time all these "oopsies" become architectural spaghetti that can only be fixed with a complete rewrite, which will certainly become more expensive than getting the code "organically" developed.
That's so far been called software development.
All software developed by people suffers from this issue.
Where exactly is the novelty?
> The only way I see AI coding working in the long run is if we go back to a Waterfall/BDUF process and having actual engineering.
Nonsense. The problem is exactly the same.
With agents iterations are much faster, and this can mean things can get messier faster but can get in shape just as fast.
Ironically, agents improve the quality of the deliverable as well. Approaches such as spec-driven development do a far better job delivering features up to spec than manual coding by flesh and blood developers.
There's an awful lot of baseless scaremongering in your post. You make it sound like with AI assisted coding developers stopped paying any attention to quality.
> All software developed by people suffers from this issue.
And that’s pretty much where you are wrong. Take any long running open source project and you can see the craftsmanship that goes into it. It may not be perfect, but hacks are clearly marked as such.
> And that’s pretty much where you are wrong. Take any long running open source project and (...)
I think you are demonstrating a clear lack of insight and experience in software development settings, including FLOSS projects. I can name you a dozen of fairly known FLOSS projects which are a big ball of mud. Just go to the likes of GitHub, check out the list of popular projects, and peek at their code. You will get a very mixed set of results.
> The compounding speed. Your devs might reach a point where they have to rewrite and refactor, in a decade.
I think that this is exactly why this scaremongering breaks down. If you believe the compounding speed is that greater, wouldn't you be compelled to accept that refactoring and cleaning things up is just as fast and effortless?
I mean, you have a tool that writes software for you following your commands. If you are that concerned with maintainability then what can possibly compell you to not invest any effort in it?
> wouldn't you be compelled to accept that refactoring and cleaning things up is just as fast and effortless?
No. not at all. Imagine that each unit of work (a new PR for a feature, a bugfix) builds something that is 99% close to optimal and you can only get to bring it to 100% if you spend time to really review and rewrite the "not good" part. Also, for the sake of argument, let's just say that the overall quality of the system is geometric mean of the quality score of each unit of work. The only way to get an "ideal" system is by ensuring that work done on it follows the "ideal" architecture - for whatever "ideal" means for the developers/maintainers.
You are arguing that you are saving time because you only have to write the 1% that the AI got wrong, so you'd be getting a 100x speed up. My argument is that there is not so much time because if you want 100% quality, you will have to review 100% of the code. Understanding the produced code is the time-consuming part, not typing it out.
So, the only way to have these time savings by working with coding agents is if you accept that the code generated is good enough to not have careful review. But if you do that, then each unit of work that you tell yourself "not ideal but good enough. Ship it and we refactor later" ends up bringing the overall system quality. If you have 10 of these "99% good enough" PRs, and your overall system score is already at 90%. With 50 of these, the score dives down to 60%.
This is what OP and I are talking about "compounding" issues: unless we get to a point where generated code does not need review at all, your development speed will always be bottle-necked by the human in the loop. The only way to get speed benefits from the code generation is if we remove the human in the loop, but in doing so quality will drop faster than you can fix it.
It's a bit of a left field question, but I am curious: Let's say that if the company wasn't paying the whole bill but only subsidizing it - e.g, if it paid 90% of the $4000. What would you do?
I don't know, why would I pay to do my job? It's not my first database switch for a startup. Only this time it doesn't take two months of grueling work. I know exactly how this is done, but the amount of grunt programming and testing and repetitive work is just not great. And it's not a task that brings new customers or a new product. Just a mandatory and annoying thing to deal with when we are growing.
And don't get me wrong. Opus did an absolutely horrible job at first, second and third round in this task. You really needed to steer it to get to the right solution.
And now Fable is out. And its first round of code reviews for this huge PR was definitely worth the money too...
Don't think that I'm just shrugging to that number. I see it every day, and I don't like that it's in the thousands now. But for people paying the 100 or 200 dollar plans, I'm not super sure if you will be able to use them in the future if the token price is in the thousands for a bit bigger task...
If I'd pay this from my own pocket, I'd definitely go with DeepSeek or local models and figure it out how to make the best use of them.
> If I'd pay this from my own pocket, I'd definitely go with DeepSeek or local models and figure it out how to make the best use of them.
IOW, you don't really think the value of this work is really worth $4k.
> why would I pay to do my job?
The question is: how long do you think that you employer will be willing to pay for you and Anthropic, if you yourself said if it were your money you'd put some time and effort to work with an open model?
> The question is: how long do you think that you employer will be willing to pay for you and Anthropic, if you yourself said if it were your money you'd put some time and effort to work with an open model?
I wonder what this question really means? Anthropic is useless if you don't know what to do with it. It's very useful if you do, and you can guide it to do the right things. Yes, it will for sure reduce the amount of people we need to hire. But we are always looking for hires who know what they do and can utilize agents to be faster.
But if you think about how long employer is willing to pay 10-20k per month per seat for Anthropic? I can't see this to be feasible and it will have to end at some point.
Regardless of the actual value produced by the models, if I am the CTO of any company that has the budget to spend $10k/month/seat on Claude, I'd take 5%-10% of that to build an alternative in-house.
I'm with you here. We can't slide into a situation where you put a sizable amount of your budget for an American mega corporation if you want to survive in the competition. We need local models and we need them to be good enough to help us.
I wouldn't mind paying $20/month to https://wikinews.org to help them build a system that indexed news from different sources, threw the links at an LLM summarizer and used as a draft submission to wikinews.
It would be interesting to see some kind of future where reporters get paid per fact they feed into the system, and then the system just outputs a coherent list of what happened without any fluff, or opinion.
The hard part would be figuring out the worth of each submission. LLMs might be able to assign a price based on the importance of the fact submitted? and then subscription fee people pay is paid to the contributors. I guess you could also have people rate the inputs and base it on that. (what the readers found important.)
> Think of what processes and management was used for pyramid building
For what, a glorified tomb?
I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans". It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large.
We covered that below in the thread. The Apollo Program wouldn't exist if it wasn´t for the Cold War. The Manhattan Project also surely classifies as "effort that only get to be done because of War".
The Apollo program wouldn't have happened without Sputnik and against the backdrop of the Cold War. Getting to the moon is cool and all but the subtle hint to the Soviets is "we have ICBMs".
The US had ICBMs in the 1950s. The Saturn V was not an ICBM. Staging was not necessary for ICBMs. None of the lunar landing module and equipment was usable for military purposes. NASA was run by civilians, not the military.
Tyson: "Things you’ve never done before that are expensive and dangerous and have uncertain returns on investment are simply not done by corporate entities."
A few seconds of googling turned up:
"Robert Peary’s North Pole Expedition (1909): Backed heavily by the National Geographic Society and The New York Times, alongside wealthy private investors like J.P. Morgan"
Many other exploratory expeditions were funded by both private interests and governments, such as the first transatlantic cable.
Tyson: "when we learned the Soviet Union was not going to the moon, that we just ended it all."
I lived through those times. There were several followup moon landings, but the audience grew bored with it, and so Congress cut the funding.
Tyson is an authority on science, but for anything else he isn't more authoritative than you or I.
BTW, I've read multiple books on the Apollo program. The idea it was run or funded by the military is false. Yes, the astronauts were Air Force test pilots. You know why they were selected? Because test pilots have the perfect skill set to be astronauts. And it paid off handsomely as Armstrong saved two missions from disaster.
Also, Armstrong gave up his military commission before he was an astronaut. NASA wanted to make it clear the moon landing was not a military operation by having a civilian commander of Apollo 11.
NASA is a prestige organization. If there isn’t a peer rival there is little to gain from funding that prestige. Whether that is for the betterment of society is up for debate.
The moon landing is definitely a fruit of war efforts.
Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down process.
Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment.
LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you bring a cultural landmark that it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.
> I fail to find anything in history that advanced the sciences or the arts through "collective effort of hundreds or thousands of humans".
> It's only for war or to consolidate power in the hands of the ruling class, never for the benefit of society at large.
I'm breaking it up into two statements because sufficient evidence has been provided to contradict the former, and some of your rebuttals did not align with the latter. Let's break those down:
> The moon landing is defintely a fruit of a war effort.
But is it only for war? Or did it "advance the sciences" + "for the benefit of society at large"?
> Wikipedia is the opposite of a top-down effort.
Your original statement didn't say it had to be a top-down effort. It's certainly "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large".
> Aqueducts and railroads: responded on a sibling comment.
Scale and precision also matter and don't negate the fact that these are "something in history" + "collective effort" + "not only for war" + "for the benefit of society at large".
> LOTR films: I don't even know how it relates to the point, but it's funny that you cultural landmark that only worked because it's an adaptation of the works of a single individual.
I only picked LOTR films because they are notorious for being large scale and you never said it didn't have to be an adaptation. I could have picked The Simpsons, Star Wars, Breaking Bad, you name it.
No, but without it wouldn't come to existence. You can call it "moving the goal posts" if you want, my point is these efforts are not primarily motivated for the good of society and whatever advances we have are accidental, secondary effects.
> Your original statement didn't say it had to be a top-down effort.
I am responding to someone giving the example of the pyramids as something that could only be achieved due to "hierarchy, management and process", do I have to say it?
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the bosses ever done for us?
What about them? These technologies already existed, the only thing that changed is that economies of scale enabled by the centralized power. Smaller tribes and villages could have gone by implementing more localized solutions.
Local conflicts do not get solved by higher levels, they get tapered over. WIth all the power and resources amassed by the Federal Government, one would think this could've been solved already, right?
Ha, and I flunked a "Fullstack Developer" interview some years ago because I didn't reach for npm or React to build a page that had a simple form to make a request to the backend.
As a business owner: not so bad if you are a freelancing or just a few business partners providing some type of service, but terrible the moment you start considering employing other people.
reply