logoalt Hacker News

truncatetoday at 7:33 AM2 repliesview on HN

>> Let’s face it: by the time I manually ship version 1.0 of a product, the AI-assisted version could have been deployed 10x faster. By then, enough real-world feedback would have surfaced to identify the major issues, and tools like Claude Code would make it possible to fix and ship version 2.0 at an incredible pace.

Really depends on what you are shipping, what your users expect and what your personal preference is. I do not want to go 10x on products that need high performance / high reliability, is deployed at large scale where its not easy to undo. But for other stuff, sure why not. The problem is everyone just puts everything in same basket. Either way, AI is useful but not to the same extent people claim it to be.


Replies

vinnymactoday at 7:47 AM

Well said. In creative spaces they talk about “Dirty” vs “Clean”. Dirty they say lets you move fast. Clean is slow.

Happen to be a startup that isn’t mission critical to someone’s health and well being? Great, now you can use AI and be as dirty as you would like.

Are you working with dangerous chemicals that are ingested by others, or systems that control hunks of metal flying through the sky with hundreds on board? Maybe we should stay clean in those environments until we make AI itself clean.

altern8today at 7:41 AM

It's extremely useful for UIs.

As a front-end guy, if I owned a project I would have the API AI-assisted and UI AI-driven.