They are nowhere near solved. Agents make serious mistakes in judgment and do it frequently enough to threaten the viability of the codebase unless you slow down and monitor them very, very closely. If you do that, it's all good. If you're not, your codebase is rotting at a superhuman speed underneath you and you have no idea until it collapses.
I agree they make mistakes in judgement, that's the whole point of plan mode. That judgement comes to the surface before lots of tokens are wasted without sight of the overall solution.
It's all very simple. "Use x library, data model should be xyz, do m, not n."
They're obviously not at the point of replacing an experienced programmer as far as knowing the start-to-finish way of accomplishing every detail, that's what the human is for.
Plan mode improves results, but it doesn't solve the underlying problems. Pretty often Claude Opus 4.7 on xhigh will formulate a reasonable enough plan, churn for a while, then come back with a summary that it didn't stick to the plan because it wasn't accurate.
Worse, the disclaimer is buried under a bunch of "did X, did Y on line Z of file a/b/c", as if it's just a minor inconvenience. To the extent the plan was inaccurate, you're left in an undefined state where you might as well undo what it just did..
You have to review the plan and fill in any missing gaps or correct anything that's wrong. Plan mode often isn't one shot, it might take a few iterations, but once the plan is nailed down, the results are usually very good.
You're right. I think having it spawn lots of subagents, read everything, formulate a big and detailed plan, only for it to be subtly wrong while requiring me to carefully review the result and the intermediate plans that produced it is quite tiring. I suppose things slip through.
If you understand these subtle pieces you perceive the AI to get wrong, you should include that in your prompt. Also, unit test and functional test coverage go a long way to ensure correct behavior.
I could also include the correct implementation for it to copy in the prompt, if you get what I'm trying to say. Some amount of laziness or vagueness in the prompt is an intended use case, it's surely the point of having the subagents do so much churning of tokens to research before writing the plan that I'm about to disregard. But sure, those are helpful tips.
It's entirely possible that modern horticultural techniques are resulting in the trees going dormant earlier, accumulating the required chill hours, and then breaking dormancy earlier. It's quite likely that the care of the trees has changed substantially from 1900 onward.
Why not just create a WoW-like game that doesn't infringe on the IP? Surely there are enough people following the project that at some point, they could have pivoted into a wholly unique IP.
Every time someone goes to a college or university and pays out of their own pocket to learn the skills necessary to work for a corporation, that's society subsidizing the costs of the corporation.
We're being robbed. We need to actively shame people that spend massive amounts of money on college.
I don't understand how we went from "corporations are stealing from us" to "we need to shame random people (who are just trying to improve their lives)"
We are being robbed, but not by the regular people trying to get educated, but by the politicians and wealthy capitalists that could change educational models to not require paying massive amounts to get educated. 99.5% of what people want or need to learn were discovered by people either retired or long dead, but access to many of those materials and knowledge is held behind a profit seeking toll booth.
Seems to be little incentive for companies to go public, other than fleecing 401k account holders that have to invest in funds managed by the same companies that underwrite IPOs.
Ironically, many cars don't have radiator caps, only reservoirs.
Modern cars, for the most part, do not leak coolant unless there's a problem. They operate a high pressure. Most people, for their own safety, should not pop the hood of a car.
You literally cannot become a legal driver in Poland without popping the hood, showing and explaining random two refillable tanks and oil level check. It’s a part of the driver’s license exam.
What the hell? There are plenty of reasons to pop your hood that literally anyone competent to drive should be able to do perfectly safely. Swapping your own battery. Pulling a fuse. Checking your oil, topping up your oil. Adding windshield wiper fluid. Jump starting a car. Replacing parts that are immediately available.
Not requiring one to pop the hood, but since I've almost finished the list of "things every driver should be able to do to their car": Place and operate a jack, change a tire, replace your windshield wiper blades, add air to tires (to appropriate pressure), and put gas in the damned thing.
These are basic skills that I can absolutely expect a competent, driving adult to be able to do (perhaps with a guide).
I mean, I don't disagree that these are basic skills that most anyone should be able to perform. But most people are not capable to do them safely. Whether that's aptitude or motivation, doesn't matter.
Ask your average person what a 'fuse' even is, they won't be able to tell you, let alone how to locate the right one and check it.
Just think about how help the average person is when it comes to doing basic tasks on a computer, like not install the Ask(TM) Toolbar. That applies to many areas of life.
I have had this new car for 5 months. I haven't learned to turn on the headlights yet. It just turns itself on and adjusts the beams. Every now and then I think about where that switch might be but never get to it. I should probably know.
reply