You’ve hit the nail on the head.

I characterise llm’s as being black boxes that are filled with a dense pool of digital resources - that with the correct prompt you can draw out a mix of resources to produce an output.

But if the mix of resources you need isn’t there - it won’t work. This isn’t limited to just text. This also applies with video models - llms work better for prompts in which you are trying to get material that is widely available on the internet.

Lets suppose whatever you say is true.

If Im the govt, Id be foaming at the mouth - those projects that used to require enormous funding now will supposedly require much less.

Hmmm, what to do? Oh I know. Lets invest in Digital ID-like projects. Fun.

It is true. Here is the publication going over how to generate this type of dataset and finetune: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.14245

I don't think you grasp my statement. LLMs will exceed humans greatly for any domain that is easy to computationally verify such as math and code. For areas not amenable to deterministic computations such as human biology, or experimental particle physics, progress will be slower

lol did you even read my post, dude?

They're not buying code.

They are buying a service. As long as the service 'works' they do not care about the other stuff. But they will hold you liable when things go wrong.

The only caveat is highly regulated stuff, where they actually care very much.

Lol what. The difference is that the senior... is a senior. Ask yourself what characteristics comprises a senior vs junior...

You're glossing over so much stuff. Moreover, how does the Junior grow and become the senior with those characteristics, if their starting point is LLMs?

I’m not glossing over anything. You and I are talking about the exact same thing phrased differently. How does a senior know when to reject some LLM code and start over? Experience. I don’t disagree with you but your tone is aggravating.

This. I really wonder how trainees are supposed to grow in an age where they are asked not to code themselves but guide a machine doing so.

You're not really answering the question are you?

Your answer is to play with it. Cool. But why cant you and others put together a proper guide lol? It cant be that hard.

Go ahead and do it - it'll challenge the Anti-AI posters you are referencing. I and others want to see that debate.

Don't worry we'll all be taking the Claude certification courses soon enough

Ah - I know! Seriously I know. There's such a bad need for this right now. The problem is that the folks who are great at agentic coding are coding their asses off 16 to 20 hours a day and don't have a minute they want to spend on writing guides because of the opportunity cost.

One of the rare resources I found recently was the OpenClaw guys interview on Lex. He drops a few bangers that are really valuable and will save you having to spend a long time figuring it out.

Also there's a very strong disincentive for anyone to write right now because we're competing against the noise and the slop in the space. So best to just shut the fuck up and create as fast as we can, and let the outcome speak for itself. You're going to see a lot more products like OpenClaw where the pace of innovation is rapid, and the author freely admits that they're coding agentically and not writing a single line.

I think the advantage that Peter has (openclaw author) is that he has enough money and success to not give a fuck about what people say re him writing purely agentically, so he's been very open about it which has been great for others who are considering doing the same.

But if you have a software engineering career or are a public figure with something to lose, you tend to STFU if you're doing pure agentic coding on a project.

But that'll change. Probably over the next few months. OpenClaw broke the ice.

Here’s some practical tips:

Start small. Figure out what it (whatever tool you’re using) can do reliably at a quality level you’re comfortable with. Try other tools. There are tons. If it doesn’t get it right with the first prompt, iterate. Refine. Keep at it until you get there.

When you have seen some pattern work, do that a bunch. It won’t always work. Write rules / prompts / skills to try to get it to avoid making the mistakes you see. Keep doing this for a while and you’ll get into a groove.

Then try taking on bigger chunks of work at a time. Break apart a problem the same way you’d do it yourself first. Write a framework first. Build hello world. Write tests. Build the happy path. Add features. Don’t forget to make it write lots of tests. And run them. It’ll be lazy if you let it, so don’t let it. Each architectural step is not just a single prompt but a conversation with the output being a commit or a PR.

Also, use specs or plans heavily. Have a conversation with it about what you’re trying to do and different ways to do it. Their bias is to just code first and ask questions later. Fight that. Make it write a spec doc first and read it carefully. Tell it “don’t code anything but first ask me clarifying questions about the problem.” Works wonders.

As for convincing the AI haters they’re wrong? I seriously do. Not. Care. They’ll catch up. Or be out of a job. Not my problem.

I’m not a SWE by trade so I could care less about your last comment.

But again this is all… vague. I’m personally not convinced at all.

I’ll be hiring for a large project soon, so I’ll see for myself what benefits (well I care about net benefits) these tools are providing in the workplace.

If it wasn’t clear, I don’t have any desire to convince anybody of anything. You don’t believe the future is here yet? Good luck holding on to that position. Not my problem. I was taking time to try to help somebody who sounded genuinely curious and seeking help. That I’m happy to do.

You’re not going to create any future if you insult people trying to offer friendly advice, or think of the talent you rely on to create your vision as “bozo programmers”. I’d wish you good luck, but you have convinced me you don’t deserve it.

But isn't that a reflection of reality?

If you've made a significant investment in human capital, you're even more likely to protect it now and prevent posting valuable stuff on the web.

No?

Yes it is. There’s a reason why university knowledge is gated. And was gated for centuries.

Can’t believe I have to explain simple stuff.

Aye. I wish more conversations would be more of this nature - in that we should start with basic propositions - e.g. the thing does not 'know' or 'understand' what correct is.