Hacker News

points by anonymous908213 1 day ago | 0 comments

Of course you can. LLMs take you from 0 to 80 instantly. They are then completely incapable of getting from 80 to 100 and making something worth shipping to production. They are the ultimate unfinished side project generator.

[–] StilesCrisis 1 day ago

Have you, uh, used them recently? LLMs absolutely get to 100 now.

[–] brabel 22 hours ago

I’m can’t even believe that they think they can’t finish stuff. I am finishing absolutely everything I care to now. LLMs are the best thing ever to anyone who has unfinished stuff lying around. See the Goose programming language for an example, its design was written 15 years ago and perfected over time but the effort to write the compiler was just too much… before LLM. Claude wrote it in a couple of weeks I think. And I tried it, it’s as good as it looks.

[–] anonymous908213 1 day ago

For a definition of 100 which includes nobody actually using any LLM-written software in production at scale, other than Codex and Claude Code, which are both horrifically buggy, bloated, insecure pieces of software that are only used for their association with another piece of software gated behind them and which nobody would choose to use if they were themselves third-party harnesses. If LLMs could get to 100, the promised software revolution I am told is here every day would actually be visible.

We would be using LLM-generated compilers, an LLM-generated OS, an LLM-generated browser, LLM-generated databases, etc. etc. etc. etc, and not only are we not using all of those things, we're not using a single one of those things. Nobody is buying LLM-generated games, nobody is using LLM-generated consumer applications that replace Photoshop or Final Cut or Blender or Unity ("PhotoCraft" is itself an admitted scam from its own prompter, who outright confessed here that he lied about its capabilities on Reddit to build hype), nobody is accomplishing anything of economic value. LLMs are obviously hundreds of times more "productive" than humans, so the moment they can reach 100, all of these things would happen basically overnight, and yet none of them have happened. Curious, isn't it?

[–] StilesCrisis 1 day ago

What makes you think people _aren't_ using LLMs to work on your OS, your compilers, your databases? I know for a fact Microsoft is using LLMs heavily in development. Linux now accepts LLM PRs. We just had an article a few days ago about how PostgreSQL is having dozens of bugs discovered and fixed via LLMs. I work in compilers and everyone I know uses LLMs.

[–] anonymous908213 1 day ago

I am talking about people starting new projects, which was the subject of this subthread. I am aware that Microsoft is using LLMs to work on Windows, and now they have remote code execution in MS Paint. Great. The ability to commit shit code to something that is already in production is not exactly revolutionary either.

> how PostgreSQL is having dozens of bugs discovered and fixed via LLMs

The PostgreSQL article was specifically about how the LLMs were incapable of fixing bugs, meaning they had to delay their next major version because humans were unable to deal with the volume of issues reported. I did not make a claim that LLMs are useless, could not help review code, etc, but there is a difference between a useful tool and something that generates production-ready software wholesale.

This is what "100" looks like if you try to generate a DB from scratch: https://jepsen.io/analyses/particledb-1.1.4 - written in Rust, ""formally verified"", scammed AI-pilled investors out of $90 million for a database that fundamentally doesn't work in any capacity whatsoever.

[–] kristiandupont 1 day ago

>I am talking about people starting new projects, which was the subject of this subthread.

The subthread was also about 80-100. This seems like a goal post move.

>The PostgreSQL article was specifically about how the LLMs were incapable of fixing bugs

We must have read different articles. This one does not say that, as best as I can tell: https://www.theregister.com/databases/2026/10/16/postgres-19...

[–] drivebyhooting 1 day ago

What prevents AI from cloning photoshop feature for feature, bug for bug?

You have the perfect verifier.

[–] anonymous908213 1 day ago

The Halting Problem, for one.

[–] glennfiedler 1 day ago

https://github.com/storytold/photocraft

[–] anonymous908213 1 day ago

> "PhotoCraft" is itself an admitted scam from its own prompter, who outright confessed here that he lied about its capabilities on Reddit to build hype

I know AI bros are allergic to reading, but at least feed my reply to a clanker and get it to summarise for you before ignoring what I wrote. This lying con artist went on a media hype tour claiming, with no qualifications, that he would have "100% parity" with the entire Adobe suite in a month (this was a month ago, by the way). He then admitted here on HN that he was lying in other places to build hype and that that claimed goal of 100% parity in a month would not be accomplished[1][2]. His own clankers have revised their own made-up estimate from 82% parity down to 45%:

> These numbers replace the 2026-10-03 estimate (82% "of the way", 140–220 agent-hours to 95%, kept below for the record). That estimate counted feature surface and was far too optimistic"[3]

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49962334

[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961661

[3]https://github.com/storytold/photocraft/blob/main/docs/targe...

You people, really this entire industry, are completely bereft of a single intelligent thought, the only thing you all can do is lie, lie, lie. The multi-trillion dollar scam, the entire US economy centered around how long three of the world's most notorious liars and their army of MLM artists can keep the charade going and get rubes like you to unironically shill their scamware as though any professional in the world is using it over Photoshop.

[–] versteegen 18 hours ago

Hey, this is largely a valuable comment, but you're breaking rules, don't attack your interlocutors like that. Be civil.

[–] drivebyhooting 1 day ago

We might be early but we’re not wrong.

Pets.com was an ignominious scam but the internet flourished after a cleansing.

Do you think anyone will pay for photoshop in 10 years, when a free version can be conjured up just by screen capturing all the interactions professionals have with photoshop?

[–] ChickeNES 23 hours ago

> We would be using LLM-generated compilers, an LLM-generated OS, an LLM-generated browser, LLM-generated databases, etc. etc. etc. etc, and not only are we not using all of those things, we're not using a single one of those things.

Speak for yourself :)