Leo's amazing predictions

[Michal__]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It costs $2+ per query.

When using cursor one question can take 10+ minutes to complete and can cost like 10$.

I have spent 50$/1 - 2 hours with Cursor. 

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Michal__ said:

When using cursor one question can take 10+ minutes to complete and can cost like 10$.

I have spent 50$/1 - 2 hours with Cursor. 

Interesting.

I hope it's worth it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[something_else]

12 minutes ago, bazera said:

Yes me too, but how will new people become seniors without going through that junior experience first.

Strange times.

Yea, exactly. It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.

We've completely restructured our entire team now as a result of AI. Instead of having two squads of 4 devs each working on one feature, now every dev is working on one feature in a 'pod' with a designer and a product manager. Even if the feature is massive, it gets one dev. Because of AI assisted coding this is manageable, and actually we're all loving it because we get a ton of autonomy and ownership over features that we didn't get before.

For a while, when we were working in squads of 4, it felt like devs became meat interfaces to Claude. The product team came up with a feature, designer designed it, tech lead broke it down and wrote tickets for us and then we basically pasted the tickets into Claude.

Now each dev has complete ownership over the lifecycle of their feature, manage their own tickets, breaking it down however they like, architecting a solution, working closely with product and designers etc. I think this may be how the future of software engineering is going to be, moving away from the complexities of writing code and more towards system design, consultation, and collaboration.

[Leo Gura]

The problem I find with using AI to do creative work is that you end up wasting way too much time trying to get the AI to create what you want, and it never really creates what you truly wanted. But you wasted 10 hours fiddling with the knobs. By the time you invested 10 hours into it, you're hooked. But it isn't really creating what you wanted.

Such a process is the death of creativity and spirit. Rather than being truly creative and skillful, you are just manipulating knobs to get half-assed approximations of something good.

Using AI is almost like gambling. At least that's the case for image generation. It takes hours of trial and error just to create one usable image.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

Correction: Earlier in this thread I said the gold EFT is called GDX. That was a mistake. It is called GLD.

Edited 44 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[something_else]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem I find with using AI to do creative work is that you end up wasting way too much time trying to get the AI to create what you want, and it never really creates what you truly wanted. But you wasted 10 hours fiddling with the knobs. By the time you invested 10 hours into it, you're hooked. But it isn't really creating what you wanted.

Such a process is the death of creativity and spirit. Rather than being truly creative and skillful, you are just manipulating knobs to get half-assed approximations of something good.

Using AI is almost like gambling. At least that's the case for image generation. It takes hours of trial and error just to create one usable image.

This is very much the case for image generation, it is almost good enough to be amazing for specific applications but always falls just short. I promise you that this is not the experience with coding agents in most cases. They're flexible enough to do exactly what you want much quicker than you could without them. They make mistakes, but if you point them out and give them more direction, they'll adapt and do what you want.

Right now I'm working on a quick prototype for a new editor interface we are building at work and it's the most creative I've felt during working hours in a while. I have ideas for features I want to add, I ask the AI, it implements them, they work. My mind is entirely focusing on ideas, and implementation is secondary. This code will never reach production, but in ONE day I have an extremely detailed, functional prototype that proves the tech is viable for a production-level implementation. This prototype alone would have taken a team of four people 2-4 weeks to complete three years ago.

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, something_else said:

This prototype alone would have taken a team of four people 2-4 weeks to complete three years ago.

Okay, but if everyone can do that, it has very little value.

Anything that's easy becomes worthless in business.

The market will get flooded with mediocre AI slop creations. Why would they be worth anything?

Today you still have an edge because AI is so new that 99% of people don't know how to use it yet. But in 10 years every fool will be using it to create slop.

I don't think you guys quite appreciate how serious this value-add issue is. If AI can truly do what humans do, then humans have no value-add, which means humans are no longer necessary. You better hope for your sake that AI cannot replace you. Because if it can, you're as good as dead. Not because it will kill you, but because you are useless.

If you think that you will get to be useless and still survive, you're kidding yourself. Useless things don't survive for long.

Do you really think these billionaires care about helping useless things survive?

Edited 7 minutes ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@something_else honestly, you sound blessed to be employed in a workplace that has adapted and restructured quickly as a result of advances in AI. Do you imagine your job would be less satisfying without such quick evolution? Cheers for sharing too

Edited 15 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru