I don't want to be overly negative, but I think it's only fair given the author hasn't graced us with their own thoughts, instead offloading the actual writing to an LLM.
I view the files, and then review the changes in magit, and either approve some or all of them and commit them, or tell claude to do some thing else.
it works astonishingly well.
I’m building a non-trivial platform as a solo project/business and have been working on it since about January. I’ve gotten more done in two nights than I did in 3 months.
I’m sure there are tons of arguments and great points against what I just said, but it’s my current reality and I still can’t believe it. I shelled out the $100/mo after one night of blowing through the $20 credits I used as a trial.
It does struggle with design and front end. But don’t we all.
LLMs have next to no understanding of their own internal processes. There's a significant amount of research that demonstrates this. All explanations of an internal thought process in an LLM are completely reverse engineered to fit the final answer (interestingly, humans are also prone to this – seen especially in split brain experiments).
In addition, the degree to which the author must have prompted the LLM to get it to anthropomorphize this hard makes the rest of the project suspect. How many of the results are repeated human prompting until the author liked the results, and how many come from actual LLM intelligence/analysis skill?
and as the article said "an LLM who just spent thousands of words explaining why they're not allowed to use thousands of words", its just funny to read.
You're stuck on the anthropomorphize semantics, but that wasn't the purpose of the exercise.
I would go further and say it's _always_ fabricated. LLMs are no better able to explain their inner workings than you are able to explain which neurons are firing for a particular thought in your head.
Note, this isn't a statement on the usefulness of LLMs, just their capability. An LLM may eventually be given a tool to enable it to introspect, but IMO its not natively possible with the LLM architectures today.
It sounds a lot like like the Murderbot character in the AppleTV show!
Maybe there’s genuine sentience there, maybe not. Maybe that text explains what’s happening, maybe not.
FireFox 113.0.2, how come?
You wrote this like this is some rare occurrence, and not a description of a bulk of the production code that exists today, even at high level tech companies.
It sees everything it needs to in one pass, no extra reasoning or instruction tokens around things like MCP that abstract and create hops to simple understanding of where things are at.
I was never a great terminal developer, I cant even type right - but Claude Code by far provides the best software engineering interface in there terms of LLM/agent UX.
It is good because it highlights the relevant aspects of the design and you can use this, plus some other resources, to replicate the idea.
