I think AI in you IDE is meant to help you with small things while AI agents are supposed to do development for you. If people will start using AI agents they won’t need IDEs so this take is consistent with their business model.
in one regard I can understand, they’re running a business and don’t want to be at a disadvantage against their competition.
on the other hand have some conviction for your product, otherwise I will lose confidence that your product is as good as your marketing makes it seem.
They are still bullish on LLM, just to augment rather than displace human suggested development.
This perspective is quite consistent with the need for a product that manages prompting/context for a human user and helps the human review and integrate the LLM supplied content in a reasonable way.
If LLM were as useful as some of the fanatics say, you’d just use a generic prompt and it would poop out the finished project. This is by the way the perspective of an executive I talked to not long ago, that he was going to be able to let go of all his “coders” and feed his “insight” directly into a prompt that will do it all for him instead. He is also easily influenced so articles like this can reshape him into a more tenable position, after which he’ll pretend he never thought a generic prompt would be good enough
Note: this comes from someone that makes a (very good) ide which they only monetize with an AI subscription so it’s interesting to see their take
(They use Claude opus like all the others so the results are similar)
I think AI in you IDE is meant to help you with small things while AI agents are supposed to do development for you. If people will start using AI agents they won’t need IDEs so this take is consistent with their business model.
in one regard I can understand, they’re running a business and don’t want to be at a disadvantage against their competition.
on the other hand have some conviction for your product, otherwise I will lose confidence that your product is as good as your marketing makes it seem.
They are still bullish on LLM, just to augment rather than displace human suggested development.
This perspective is quite consistent with the need for a product that manages prompting/context for a human user and helps the human review and integrate the LLM supplied content in a reasonable way.
If LLM were as useful as some of the fanatics say, you’d just use a generic prompt and it would poop out the finished project. This is by the way the perspective of an executive I talked to not long ago, that he was going to be able to let go of all his “coders” and feed his “insight” directly into a prompt that will do it all for him instead. He is also easily influenced so articles like this can reshape him into a more tenable position, after which he’ll pretend he never thought a generic prompt would be good enough