> I still use them but find that more of the time is spent arguing with it and correcting problems with it than actually getting any useful product.
I feel the same. They're better at some things yes, but also worse at other things. And for me, they're worse at my really important use cases. I could spend a month typing prompts into Codex or AntiGravity and still be left holding the bag. Just yesterday I had a fresh prompt and Geminin bombed super hard on some basic work. Insisting the problem was X when it wasn't. I don't know. I was super bullish but now I'm feeling far from sold on it.
Gemini 2.5 was genuinely impressive. I even talked it up here. I was a proper fanboy and really enjoyed using it. Gemini 3 is still good at certain things, but it is clearly worse than 2.5 when it comes to working with larger codebases. Recently, I was using AntiGravity and it could not help me find or fix a reference-counting bug. ( 50 classes, 20k LOC total, so well within context limits ) I know AntiGravity is new, which explains why it is rough around the edges. But it is built on Gemini, so the results should at least be on par with Gemini 3, right? Apparently not. I am an excellent prompter, and no amount of additional context, call stacks, watch-window values, you name it, made any difference.
I still use Gemini for code reviews and simple problems, and it remains excellent for those use cases. But in many respects, Gemini 3 is a regression. It hallucinates more, listens less, and seems oddly resistant to evidence. It produces lots of lofty, confident-sounding statements while ignoring the actual facts in front of it. The experience can be exhausting, and I find myself using it much less as a result. I guess this is typical of companies these days - do something great and then enshittify it? Or maybe there are technical issues I'm not aware of.
What is especially interesting is reading all the articles proclaiming how incredible AI coding has become. And to be fair, it is impressive, but it is nowhere near a magic bullet. I recently saw a non-programmer designer type claiming he no longer needs developers. Good luck with that. Have fun debugging a memory leak, untangling a database issue, or maintaining a non-trivial codebase.
At this point, I am pretty sure my use cases are going to scale inversely with my patience and with my growing disappointment.
First you insult my credibility then you use AI to generate a comment? You didn't just use an LLM to "clean it up" it looks completely written by an LLM. And not only do I have a problem with it, it's, in general, against the rules here. Moderators will warn and eventually ban this type of thing.
> The proper decorum here is if the doctor made the wrong diagnosis. All fees and causal charges made by the doctor must be fully refunded and paid for. It’s only fair given the premium they were originally given to make a false diagnosis.
Do you think it would be better to live in a world with no doctors? You can already live in that world if you want. Thanks to doctors, millions of people around the world no longer die from treatable illnesses. Everyone in my family has either had their life saved, or saved from ruin, by a doctor at one point or another.
I hate this bs where someone tries to defeat my point by making it one dimensional. Do we want to live in a world with no doctors? Do you think humans are such simpletons that you need to immediately go there in order to break down the argument for me?
I think the world would be better if becoming a doctor wasn’t tied up with financial incentives and prestige. Lower the bar of becoming a doctor so the fees aren’t astronomically high. Also there would be more doctors so we don’t suffer from the glut of supply we currently do. Also more doctors means more competition so that automatically ups quality and accuracy of treatment.
Every doctor needs a rotten tomato score plastered on their lab coat by law. That number needs to be rooted in metrics not vibes. How many misdiagnosis he made how many times he lost a lawsuit for malpractice. All of that would make the world a better place.
> Everyone in my family has either had their life saved, or saved from ruin, by a doctor at one point or another.
There are 800000k patients who die or are seriously injured by a misdiagnosis every year. Show gratitude for the doctors who saved your family… but gratitude for the profession in general? My gratitude is much lower in the general case.
> There are 800000k patients who die or are seriously injured by a misdiagnosis every year.
Yes, I once sat in a recovery room with my Mom after she had been given too much propofol during an endoscopy. Despite the fact that her breathing was labored, the clinic she was at didn't want to do anything so I called 911. I'm not sure what happened, but I can see that side of your point. I did learn to be much more careful about how I saw to my parents medical care after that.
Hey I don't appreciate your comments or your attacks (which happened in a another thread) so I'm ending it. I can't control you but I would appreciate it if you leave and don't talk to me. Thanks.
> This was something many many doctors originally claimed was completely safe.
I never heard any doctors claim any of the covid vaccines were completely safe. Do you mind if I ask which doctors, exactly? Not institutions, not vibes, not headlines. Individual doctors. Medicine is not a hive mind, and collapsing disagreement, uncertainty, and bad messaging into “many doctors” is doing rhetorical work that the evidence has to earn.
> The role of LLMs is they take the human bias out of the picture.
That is simply false. LLMs are trained on human writing, human incentives, and human errors. They can weaken certain authority and social pressures, which is valuable, but they do not escape bias. They average it. Sometimes that helps. Sometimes it produces very confident nonsense.
> Your post irked me because I almost got the sense that there’s a sort of prestige, admiration and respect given to doctors that in my opinion is unearned. Doctors in my opinion are like car mechanics and that’s the level of treatment they deserve.
> No one and I mean no one should trust the medical establishment or any doctor by default. They are like car mechanics and should be judged on a case by case basis.
You are entitled to that opinion, but I wanted to kiss the surgeon who removed my daughter’s gangrenous appendix. That reaction was not to their supposed prestige, it was recognition that someone applied years of hard won skill correctly at a moment where failure had permanent consequences.
Doctors make mistakes. Some are incompetent. Some are cynical. None of that justifies treating the entire profession as functionally equivalent to a trade whose failures usually cost money rather than lives.
And if doctors are car mechanics, then patients are machines. That framing strips the humanity from all of us. That is nihilism.
No one should trust doctors by default. Agreed. But no one should distrust them by default either. Judgment works when it is applied case by case, not when it is replaced with blanket contempt.
> I never heard any doctors claim any of the covid vaccines were completely safe. Do you mind if I ask which doctors, exactly? Not institutions, not vibes, not headlines. Individual doctors. Medicine is not a hive mind, and collapsing disagreement, uncertainty, and bad messaging into “many doctors” is doing rhetorical work that the evidence has to earn.
There’s no data here. Many aspects of life are not covered by science because trials are expensive and we have to go with vibes.
And even on just vibes we often can get accurate judgements. Do you need clinical trials to confirm there’s a ground when you leap off your bed? No. Only vibes unfortunately.
If you ask people (who are not doctors) to remember this time they will likely tell you this is what they remember. I also do have tons of anecdotal accounts of doctors saying the Covid 19 vaccine is safe and you can find many yourself by searching. Here’s one: https://fb.watch/Evzwfkc6Mp/?mibextid=wwXIfr
The pediatrician failed to communicate the risks of the vaccine above and made the claim it was safe.
At the time to my knowledge the actual risks of the vaccine were not fully known and the safety was not fully validated. The overarching intuition was that the risk of detrimental of effects from the vaccine was less than the risk+consequence of dying from Covid. That is still the underlying logic (and best official practice) today even with the knowledge about the heart risk covid vaccines pose.
This doctor above did not communicate this risk at all. And this was just from a random google search. Anecdotal but the fact that I found one just from a casual search is telling. These people are not miracle workers.
> That is simply false. LLMs are trained on human writing, human incentives, and human errors. They can weaken certain authority and social pressures, which is valuable, but they do not escape bias. They average it. Sometimes that helps. Sometimes it produces very confident nonsense.
No it’s not false. Most of the writing on human medical stuff is scientific in nature. Formalized with experimental trials which is the strongest form of truth humanity has both practically and theoretically. This “medical science” is even more accurate than other black box sciences like psychology as clinical trials have ultra high thresholds and even test for causality (in contrast to much of science only covers correlation and assumes causality through probabilistic reasoning)
This combined with anecdotal evidence that the LLM digests in aggregate is a formidable force. We as humans cannot quantify all anecdotal evidence. For example, I heard anecdotal evidence of heart issues with rna vaccines BEFORE the science confirmed it and LLMs were able to aggregate this sentiment through sheer volumetric training on all complaints of the vaccine online and confirm the same thing BEFORE that Stanford confirmation was available.
> You are entitled to that opinion, but I wanted to kiss the surgeon who removed my daughter’s gangrenous appendix. That reaction was not to their supposed prestige, it was recognition that someone applied years of hard won skill correctly at a moment where failure had permanent consequences.
Sure I applaud that. True hero work for that surgeon. I’m talking about the profession in aggregate. In aggregate in the US 800000k patients die or get permanently injured from a misdiagnosis every year. Physicians fuck up and it’s not occasionally. It’s often and all the fucking time. You were safer getting on the 737 max the year before they diagnosed the mcas errors then you are NOT getting a misdiagnosis and dying from a doctor. Those engineers despite widespread criticism did more for your life and safety than doctors in general. That is not only a miracle of engineering but it also speaks volumes of the medical profession itself which DOES not get equivalent criticism for mistakes. That 800000k statistic is swept under the rug like car accidents.
I am entitled to my own opinion just as you are to yours but I’m making a bigger claim here. My opinion is not just an opinion. It’s a ground truth general fact backed up by numbers.
> And if doctors are car mechanics, then patients are machines. That framing strips the humanity from all of us. That is nihilism.
There is nothing wrong with car mechanics. It’s an occupation and it’s needed. And those cars if they fail they can cause accidents that involve our very lives.
But car mechanics are fallible and that fallibility is encoded into the respect they get. Of course there are individual mechanics who are great and on a case by case basis we pay those mechanics more respect.
Doctors need to be treated the same way. It’s not nilhism. It’s a quantitative analysis grounded in reality. The only piece of evidence you provided me in your counter is your daughter’s life being saved. That evidence warrants respect for the single doctor who saved your daughter’s life and not for the profession in general. The numbers agree with me.
And treatment for say the corporation responsible for the mcas failures and the profession responsible for medical misdiagnosis that killed people is disproportionate. Your own sentiment and respect for doctors in general is one piece of evidence for this.
> If you ask people (who are not doctors) to remember this time they will likely tell you this is what they remember. I also do have tons of anecdotal accounts of doctors saying the Covid 19 vaccine is safe and you can find many yourself by searching. Here’s one: https://fb.watch/Evzwfkc6Mp/?mibextid=wwXIfr
> No it’s not false. Most of the writing on human medical stuff is scientific in nature. Formalized with experimental trials which is the strongest form of truth humanity has both practically and theoretically. This “medical science” is even more accurate than other black box sciences like psychology as clinical trials have ultra high thresholds and even test for causality (in contrast to much of science only covers correlation and assumes causality through probabilistic reasoning)
Sorry, but these kinds of remarks wreck your credibility and make it impossible for me to take you seriously.
If you disagree with me then it is better to say you disagree and state your reasoning why. If the reasoning is too foundational than it is better to state it as such and exit.
Saying something like my "credibility is wrecked" and impossible to take me "seriously" crosses a line into deliberate attack and insult. It's like calling me an idiot but staying technically within the HN rules. You didn't need to go there and breaking those rules in spirit is just as bad imo.
Yeah I agree I think the conversation is over. I suggest we don't talk to each other again as I don't really appreciate how you shut down the conversation with deliberate and targeted attacks.
Are you serious? People don't need religion to be moral. If what I see from religion these days is any indicator, I am extremely happy we kept our kids far far far away from it. From all of it. I will concede that not all religion is bad, but quite a lot of it is grift at best and cleverly disguised totalitarianism at worst. Many religious figures have absolutely no problem talking publicly about their "diety-given" right to dominate and control the lives of others for their own personal gain. I don't see how that fits inside any accepted definition of morality.
I am not referring to existing established religions, I am just talking about the construct of religion in general. We are allowed to invent new ones, you know.
It really makes me wonder why someone with that much wealth needs to go around making life worse for other people. At this point, it feels like a sickness.
It's interesting that the constitution prevents America from having a king, or at least it used to, but maybe the founders didn't think about other kinds of kings.
Because we're in a place, or we're getting to a place, where that's exactly what we have.
I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that the nuisance that a middle class person might feel from an urban tent city or a rat infestation is quite similar to the nuisance that an extremely wealthy person would feel from the entire middle class.
> the constitution prevents America from having a king
This is only true until SCOTUS invents a new interpretation of the constitution that not only allows for a king, but asserts it must have a king (provided they are republican). I mean, who is going to stop them from doing that? Really though, who?
Vampires have to do with blood only tangentially. It is vital energy in a broad sense that they're after, and stomping on people's freedom and privacy is but another way to suck it out.
The constitution just enabled “many kings” through commerce rather than answering to a single king. Now the many kings take turns rotating into the leadership roles as they own the representation (the other thing the constitution enables) and snack on other kings.
And when one of the favorite many kings fail they have the representatives say “this king is too big to fail, don’t let the small kings eat him, prop him up with money from the masses”.
"Concentration of power on the scale of today's mega-companies is bad" is an idea that would've resonated with the founders of the US. But it wasn't the immediate issue they were fighting, so it's not what got written down.
The greatest trick of the elites has been convincing people that the Constitution is a holy religious artifact at this point instead of a document that will still need major patches as the world changes around it.
Or maybe it's encouraging holy wars over the words of the Constitution while simply ignoring it - and especially the overall suspicion of power - whenever convenient. And thus we get a world where criticism of agents of the government is treason instead of patriotic oversight; where the police don't police their own but close ranks against external complaints.
The constitution was written by the wealthy elites of society, for the wealthy elites of society to be free of the tyranny of a monarchy. It was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I.E., see the 3/5ths personhood of enslaved people.
That's a misunderstanding of the intention of that provision. Back in the day slave owners had as many "votes" as they had slaves (the slaves themselves didn't vote), under the assumption they "cared for" those slaves and were representing them. This gave them immense political power.
To curb the power of slave owners the anti-slavery States managed to approve, against slave owners' interests, the rule their slaves didn't count as full votes. This way slave owners had less total votes, strengthening the abolitionist camp.
I did not missunderstand anything. I said the constitution was not created to grant equal rights to all people. I think your elaboration illustrates that clearly.
