this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
1087 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

84166 readers
2562 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I'm just sharing this because I found it insightful.

The author describes himself as a "fractional CTO"(no clue what that means, don't ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):

I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.

I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.

Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It looks like a rigid design philosophy that must completely rebuild for any change. If the speed of production becomes fast enough, and the cost low enough, iterating the entire program for every change would become feasible and cost effective.

[–] entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 4 months ago

... as long as the giant corpos paying through the nose for the data centers continue to vastly underprice their products in order to make us all dependent on them.

Just wait till everyone's using it and the prices will skyrocket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 4 points 4 months ago

They shipped a product in 3 months? What the fuck was it? New "under construction" page?

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I did see someone write a post about Chat Oriented Programming, to me that appeared successful, but not without cost and extra care. Original Link, Discussion Thread

Successful in that it wrote code faster and its output stuck to conventions better than the author would. But they had to watch it like a hawk and with the discipline of a senior developer putting full attention over a junior, stop and swear at it every time it ignored the rules that they give at the beginning of each session, terminate the session when it starts doing a autocompactification routine that wastes your money and makes Claude forget everything. And you try to dump what it has completed each time. One of the costs seem to be the sanity of the developer, so I really question if it's a sustainable way of doing things from both the model side and from developers. To be actually successful you need to know what you're doing otherwise it's easy to fall in a trap like the CTO, trusting the AI's assertions that everything is hunky-dory.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›