llm/9db4e77f-8dd5-46da-972e-40d33f3399ef/batch-1-21e57928-55d7-4067-9ee1-35652ac4ff30-input.json
The following is content for you to classify. Do not respond to the comments—classify them.
<topics>
1. Feasibility of Parallel Agent Workflows
Related: Skepticism regarding the human capacity to supervise multiple AI agents simultaneously, utilizing analogies like washing dishes vs. laundry, and debating the cognitive load required for context switching between 10 active coding streams.
2. Code Quantity versus Quality
Related: Discussions on whether generating 50-100 Pull Requests a week represents true productivity or merely 'token-maxxing', with concerns about code churn, technical debt, and the inability of humans to properly review such high volumes of generated code.
3. The One-Person Unicorn Startup
Related: Debates on whether AI enables solo founders to build billion-dollar companies, arguing that while coding is easier, business bottlenecks like sales, marketing, and product-market fit remain unsolved by LLMs, despite rumors of stealth successes.
4. Claude Code Product Feedback
Related: User feedback on the Claude Code CLI tool, mentioning specific bugs like terminal flickering and context loss, comparisons to tools like Codex and Cursor, and complaints about reliability and lack of basic features.
5. Cost and Access Disparities
Related: Analysis of the financial feasibility of running Opus 4.5 agents in parallel, noting that while Anthropic employees may have unlimited access, the cost for average users would be prohibitive due to token limits and API pricing.
6. Marketing Hype and Astroturfing
Related: Accusations that the original post and similar recent content represent a coordinated marketing campaign by Anthropic, with users expressing distrust of 'influencer' style posts and potential conflicts of interest from the tool's creator.
7. Future of Software Engineering
Related: Existential concerns about the devaluation of coding skills, the shift from creative building to managerial reviewing of AI output, and fears that junior developers will lose the opportunity to learn through doing.
8. Technical Workflow Configurations
Related: Specific details on managing AI agents, including the use of git worktrees for isolation, planning modes, 'teleporting' sessions between local CLI and web interfaces, and using markdown files to define agent behaviors.
9. AI Code Review Strategies
Related: Approaches for handling AI-generated code, such as using separate AI instances to review PRs, the necessity of rigorous CI/CD guardrails, and the danger of blindly trusting 'green' tests without human oversight.
10. The Light Mode Terminal Debate
Related: A humorous yet contentious side discussion sparked by the creator's use of a light-themed terminal, leading to arguments about eye strain, readability, astigmatism, and developer cultural norms regarding dark mode.
11. SaaS Commoditization and Moats
Related: Predictions that AI will drive the marginal cost of software to zero, eroding traditional SaaS business models, and that future business value will rely on proprietary data, domain expertise, and distribution rather than code.
12. Agentic Limitations and Reliability
Related: Criticisms of current AI agents acting like 'slot machines' requiring constant steering, their struggle with complex concurrency bugs, and the observation that they often produce boilerplate rather than solving deep architectural problems.
13. Corporate Adoption and Budgeting
Related: Anecdotes about colleagues burning through massive amounts of API credits with varying degrees of success, and the disconnect between management's desire for AI productivity and the reality of review bottlenecks.
14. Context Management Techniques
Related: Discussions on how to optimize context for AI agents, including the use of CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md to establish rules, and the technical challenges of context limits and pruning during long sessions.
15. Vibe Coding vs. Engineering
Related: The distinction between 'vibe coding' (iterating until it feels right without deep understanding) and traditional engineering, with experienced developers using AI as a force multiplier rather than a replacement for understanding.
0. Does not fit well in any category
</topics>
<comments_to_classify>
[
{
"id": "46526393",
"text": "> I might spend 10 minutes doing a task with AI rather than an hour (w/o AI), but trust me - I am going to keep 50 minutes to myself, not deliver 5 more tasks\n\nIt's wild that you just outright admitted this. Seems like your employer would do best to let you go and find someone that can use tools to increase their productivity."
}
,
{
"id": "46527021",
"text": "Show me the incentive, I'll show you the outcome. More than once I've had my hand slapped professionally for taking ownership of something my immediate superiors wanted to micromanage. Fine, here I was trying to take something off their plate that was in my wheelhouse, but if that's where they want to draw the line I guess I'll just give less of a shit.\n\nIf you actively deny your employees ownership, then the relationship becomes purely transactional.\n\nIt's also possible OP is just a bad employee, but I've met far more demoralized good employees than malicious bad ones over the course of my career."
}
,
{
"id": "46526578",
"text": "A lot of orgs are bad about giving credit to employees for productivity, what's the point of working 4x harder if it'll just result in a few % point difference in yearly raise, and you're still going to have to job hop to get a respectable pay bump? Might as well work less and spend time polishing your resume/side projects to make yourself as employable as possible. This is 100% the fault of poor incentives on the part of employers."
}
,
{
"id": "46524486",
"text": "> shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups?\n\nAfter months of hearing that people are producing software in months that would normally take years, the best examples of vibe coded software I've seen look like they would normally take months, not years. If you don't care how they're built or how long it took (which a user generally doesn't), much of the remaining shine comes off.\n\nIf I'm wrong, I'd love to see it. A genuinely big piece of software produced entirely (or near entirely?) with AI that would've normally taken talented engineers years to build."
}
,
{
"id": "46524681",
"text": "Its not true. The best vibe coders have been able to accomplish is projects which look like corporate boilerplates but have no inherent complexity.\n\nIts nothing more than surface level projects that we built when we wanted to pad out the resume."
}
,
{
"id": "46525013",
"text": "DO you have any idea of the man hours it took to build those large projects you are speaking of? Lets take Linux for example. Suppose for the sake of argument that Claude Code with Opus 4.5 is as smart as an average person(AGI), but with the added benefit that he can work 24/7. Suppose now i have millions of dollars to burn and am running 1000 such instances on max plans. Now if I have started running this agent since the date Claude Opus 4.5 was released and i prompted him to create a commercial-grade multi-platform OS from the caliber of Linux.\nAn estimate of the linux kernel is 100 million man hours of work. divide by 1000. We expect to have a functioning OS like Linux by 2058 from these calcualtions.\nHow long has claude been released? 2 months."
}
,
{
"id": "46526745",
"text": "Linux is valuable, because very difficult bugs got fixed over time, by talented programmers. Bugs which would cause terrible security problems of external attacks, or corrupted databases and many more.\n\nAll difficult problems are solved, by solving simple problems first and combining the simple solutions to solve more difficult problems etc etc.\n\nClaude can do that, but you seriously overestimate it's capabilities by a factor of a thousand or a million.\n\nCode that works but it is buggy, is not what Linux is."
}
,
{
"id": "46525506",
"text": "Linux is 34 years old, most large software projects are not. Also your using a specific version of Claude, and sure maybe this time is different (and every other time I've heard that over the past 5 years just isn't the same). I don't buy it, but lets go along with it. Going off that, we have the equivalent of 2 years development time according to whats being promised. Have you seen any software projects come out of Claude 4.5 Opus that you'd guess to have been a 2 year project? If so, please do share"
}
,
{
"id": "46526727",
"text": "I’m building an ERP system, I’ve already been at it for a 3 years (full time, but half the system is already in production with two tenants so not all of my time is spent on completing the product, this revenue completely sustains the project). AI is now speeding this up tremendously. Maybe 2x velocity, which is a game changer but more realistic than what you hear. The post AI features are just as good and stable as pre AI, why wouldn’t they be? I’m not going to put “slop” into my product, it’s all vetted by me. I do anticipate that when the complexity is built out and there are less new features and more maintaining/improving, the productivity will be immense."
}
,
{
"id": "46528190",
"text": "I'm not discounting your experience, but purely from experiment design, you don't have any sort of pre/post AI control. You've spent 3 years becoming a subject-matter expert who's building software in your domain; I'm not surprised AI in it's current form is helpful. A more valuable comparison would be something like If you kept going without AI, how long would it take someone with similar domain experience who's just starting their solution to catch using AI?"
}
,
{
"id": "46529526",
"text": "According to many conversations I’ve had or observed on this site, plenty of people will be surprised if not doubtful."
}
,
{
"id": "46524195",
"text": "I do stuff in my free time now that would have been a full time job a year ago. Accomplishing in months what would have taken years. (And doing in days what would have taken weeks.) I'm talking about actually built-out products with a decent amount of code and features, not basic prototypes. I feel like the vibe is \"put up or shut up\", so check out my bio for one example.\n\nI think your logic goes wrong because you assume that more productivity implies less desire for engineers. But now engineers are maybe 2x or 5x more productive than before. So that makes them more attractive to hire than before. It's not like there was some fixed pool of work to be done and you just had to hire enough to exhaust the pool. It's like if new pickaxes were invented that let your gold miners dig 5x more gold. You'd see an explosion in gold miners, not a reduction. For another example, I spend all my free time coding now because I can do so much now. I get so much more result for the same effort, that it makes sense to put more effort in."
}
,
{
"id": "46525487",
"text": "> check out my bio for one example.\n\nFirst thing I got was “browser not supported” on mobile. Then I visited the website on desktop and tested languages I’m fluent in and found immediate problems with all of them.\n\nThe voices in Portuguese are particular inexcusable, using the Portuguese flag with Brazilian voices; the accents are nothing alike and it’s not uncommon for native speakers of one to have difficulty understanding the other in verbal communication.\n\nThe knowledge assessments were subpar and didn’t seem to do anything; the words it tested almost all started with “a” and several are just the masculine/feminine variants. Then, even after I confirmed I knew every word, it still showed me some of those in the learning process, including incredibly basic ones like “I”, or “the”.\n\nThe website is something, and I very much appreciate you appear to be trying to build a service which respects the user, but I wouldn’t in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It feels like you have a particular disdain for Duolingo-style apps (I don’t blame you!) but there is so much more out there to explore in language learning."
}
,
{
"id": "46530100",
"text": "Haha, thanks for checking it out! I really appreciate the feedback.\n\n> First thing I got was “browser not supported” on mobile.\n\nYeah, I use some APIs that were only implemented in Safari on iOS 26. Kind of annoying but I use Android so I didn't realize until too late. I should fix it, but it's not a priority given the numerous other things that need improvement (as you noticed!)\n\n> The voices in Portuguese are particular inexcusable, using the Portuguese flag with Brazilian voices; the accents are nothing alike and it’s not uncommon for native speakers of one to have difficulty understanding the other in verbal communication.\n\nThat's good feedback, thanks! I only added Portuguese this weekend ( https://github.com/yaptown/yap/pull/73 ) so it's definitely still very alpha (as noted on the website :P )\n\n> The knowledge assessments were subpar and didn’t seem to do anything; the words it tested almost all started with “a” and several are just the masculine/feminine variants.\n\nThanks, will fix this tonight. The placement test was just added last week ( https://github.com/yaptown/yap/pull/72 ) so there are still some kinks to work out.\n\n> Then, even after I confirmed I knew every word, it still showed me some of those in the learning process, including incredibly basic ones like “I”, or “the”.\n\nYeah, the logic doesn't really work for people who already know every word. It tries to show words in the following order (descending): probability_of_knowledge * ln(frequency). But if you already know every word, probability_of_knowledge is the same for every word and the ln(frequency) is the only one remaining, meaning you just get the most common words. I'll add a warning to the site for people who are too advanced for the app's dictionary size – as you pointed out, it's not a good UX.\n\n> there is so much more out there to explore in language learning\n\nThere is! I usually recommend pimsleur to people. My hope is just for my app to be a useful supplement."
}
,
{
"id": "46525177",
"text": "> It's not like there was some fixed pool of work to be done and you just had to hire enough to exhaust the pool.\n\nI'm my opinion you are failing to consider other bottlenecks, a la the theory of constraints.\n\nAn analogy: Imagine you have a widget factory that requires 3 machines, executed in sequence, to produce one widget.\n\nNow imagine one of those machines gets 2x-5x more efficient. What will you do? Buy more of the faster machines? Of course not! Maybe you'll scale up by buying more of the slower machines (which are now your bottleneck) so they can match the output of the faster one, but that's only if you can acquire the raw material inputs fast enough to make use of them, and also that you can sell the output fast enough to not end up with a massive unsold inventory.\n\nBringing this back to software engineering: there are other processes in the software development lifecycle besides writing code -- namely gathering requirements, testing with users (getting feedback), and deployment / operations. And human coordination across these processes is hard, and hard to scale with agents.\n\nThese other aspects are much harder to scale (for now, at least) with agents. This is the core reason why agentic development will lead to fewer developers -- because you just don't need as many developers to deliver the same amount of development velocity.\n\nThe same logic explains (at least in part) why US companies don't simply continue hiring more and more outsourced developers. At a certain point, more raw development velocity isn't helpful because you're limited by other constraints.\n\nOn the other hand, agentic development DOES mean a boon to solo developers, who can MUCH more easily scale just themselves. It's much easier to coordinate between the product team, the development team, the ops team, and the customer support team when all the teams are in the same person's head."
}
,
{
"id": "46524287",
"text": "I \"just\" created a real-time strategy game before christmas because I could have Claude writing all the code and test it itself. It wrote the spec too, by me telling it to plan out a game \"a bit like X but with A, B, C features instead\".\n\nIt works. It's playable. I might put it online some-time when I get a chance.\n\n[EDIT: My involvement apart from the code-skimming mentioned below was mostly play-testing after Claude had \"play-tested\", and giving it feedback on what to add or change]\n\nMy best estimate from having written much simpler games before was that it churned out many months worth of working code in days. I've not written a line of it - just skimmed some code and told it to make a few architectural refactors.\n\nIt's absolutely crazy."
}
,
{
"id": "46524252",
"text": "Right but then you expect way more productivity from those teams. I'm wondering where that is.\n\nI find when I'm in a domain I'm not an expert in I am way more productive with the AI tools. With no knowledge of Java or Spring I was able to have AI build out a server in like 10 minutes, when it would have taken me hours to figure out the docs and deployment etc. But like, if I knew Java and Spring I could have built that same thing in 10 minutes anyways. That's not nothing, but also not generalisable to all of software development, not even close. Plus you miss out on actually learning the thing."
}
,
{
"id": "46524266",
"text": "> I'm wondering where that is\n\nNot at work, elsewhere"
}
,
{
"id": "46524722",
"text": "I mean at work people are slowed down by management and getting alignment is even slower than before. As PMs and execs keep asking more to be done in the same-ish time, we are getting slow cooked.\n\nExtra productivity at work is not being used at fixing bugs as well."
}
,
{
"id": "46528979",
"text": "Yeah work, despite management's best intentions, is really failing AI by being that much relatively slower than engineering potential now. It's a bummer."
}
,
{
"id": "46524703",
"text": "> I think your logic goes wrong because you assume that more productivity implies less desire for engineers.\n\nYes, this is the central fallacy. The reality is, we've been massively bottlenecked on software productivity ever since the concept of software existed. Only a tiny tiny fraction of all the software that could usefully be written has been. The limitation has always been the pool of developers that could do the work and the friction in getting those people to be able to do it.\n\nWhat it is confounded by however is the short term effect which I think is absolutely drying up the market for new junior software devs. It's going to take a while for this to work through."
}
,
{
"id": "46524339",
"text": "\"Built out products\" like you're earning money on this? Having actual users, working through edge cases, browser quirks, race conditions, marketing, communication - the real battle testing 5% that's actually 95% of the work that in my view is impossible for the LLM? Because yeah the easy part is to create a big boilerplate app and have it sit somewhere with 2 users.\n\nThe hard part is day to day operations for years with thousands of edge cases, actual human feedback and errors, knocking on 1000 doors etc.\n\nOtherwise you're just doing slot machine coding on crack, where you work and work and work one some amazing thing then it goes nowhere - and now you haven't even learned anything because you didn't code so the sideproject isn't even education anymore.\n\nWhat's the point of such a project?"
}
,
{
"id": "46529910",
"text": "> \"Built out products\" like you're earning money on this?\n\nNo, I'm not interested in monetizing stuff, I make enough money from $dayjob.\n\n> Having actual users, working through edge cases, browser quirks, race conditions, marketing, communication - the real battle testing 5% that's actually 95% of the work that in my view is impossible for the LLM?\n\nYes, all of those. Obviously an LLM won't make a tiktok ad for me, but it can help with all the other stuff. For example, you mentioned browser quirks. I ran into a bug in safari's OPFS implementation that an LLM was able to help me track down and work around. I also ran into the chrome issue where backdrop effects don't work if any of the element's parents have nonzero transparency, and claude helped me find all the cases where that happened and fix them. Both of these are from working on the app in my bio. It's a language app too, so however many edge cases you think there are, there's more :D\n\nI don't want to give the impression that it was not a lot of work. It was an enormous amount of work. It's just that each step is significantly faster now.\n\n> and now you haven't even learned anything because you didn't code so the sideproject isn't even education anymore.\n\nI read every line. You could pull up the github right now and point to any line of code and I could tell you what it does and why it's there and what will break if you remove or change it.\n\n> What's the point of such a project?\n\nI originally made it because I wanted a tool to help me learn French. It has succeeded in helping my enormously, to the point where I can have short conversations with my french family members now. Others seem to find it useful too."
}
,
{
"id": "46524224",
"text": "And to push this example further, if you can hire 10 developers each commanding 10 reliable junior-mid developers you have a team of 100, which is probably more than enough to build basically any software project in existence. WhatsApp was built with way less than that."
}
,
{
"id": "46524484",
"text": "just like a baby in a month by 9 women, isn't it )"
}
,
{
"id": "46525339",
"text": "Because a startup is NOT just writing code. It's also understanding what you are building, and for whom.\n\nThe issues of product market fit did not suddenly disappear:\n\nhttps://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-startups..."
}
,
{
"id": "46526805",
"text": "They are absolutely crushing it. I know of a one-man shop that just got notice they were selected for an eight-figure revenue contract. They would NEVER go public with their head count or their product being built by AI."
}
,
{
"id": "46524642",
"text": "> shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups\n\nOh, man, they're just waiting for their poster boy to show up. Once first unicorn \"built by a single person\" pops up you'll regret having a single social network account."
}
,
{
"id": "46524385",
"text": "> shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups?\n\nWho should be seeing that? The thing about 1 person startups is that it requires little to no communication to start up, and also very little capital. Seems easy to fly below the radar.\n\nAlso \"a ton\", idk. Doing a startup is still hard, for reasons outside of just being able to write a lot of code. In my experience churning out all this code at 10x is coming with a significant complexity tax: Turns out writing code and thinking about code problems was the relaxing part. When that goes away you have to think about real world problems only. What a fucking mess.\n\nStill, I would assume that it's more of a thing now, and something you could observe when you have YC data for example. Do we know that's not the case? I am in no position to say, one way or the other."
}
,
{
"id": "46524482",
"text": "well in this case using the methodology given, it's a hefty chunk of change in API credits that most people would require investment to spend."
}
,
{
"id": "46525031",
"text": "My favorite movie quote as it pertains to software engineering has for a long time been Jurassic Park's: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”\n\nThat’s how I feel about a lot of AI-powered development. Just because you can have 10 parallel agents cranking out features 24/7 and have AI write 100% of the code, that doesn’t mean you’re actually building a product that users want and/or that is a viable business.\n\nI’m currently in this situation, working on a greenfield project as founder/solo dev. Yes, AI has been tremendously useful in speeding things up, especially in patching over smaller knowledge gaps of mine.\n\nBut in the end, as in all the projects before in my career, building the MVP has rarely been the hard part of starting a company."
}
,
{
"id": "46526823",
"text": "I agree with you. I don’t think number of startups or less reliance on funding is the measure though.\n\nBusinesses are not code. They solve problems, find their customers, convince them to buy their solution, and maintain that relationship.\n\nCode has always been a factor but not the critical one."
}
,
{
"id": "46524297",
"text": "\"pushing 996\"\n\nWhat does this mean? You mean they have close to 1k employees? Odd typo or odd way to say it."
}
,
{
"id": "46524330",
"text": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system"
}
,
{
"id": "46524328",
"text": "I'm not in the startup scene or the US but I've come to understand this as 6 days a week of working 9am-9pm - typical hustle virtue-signalling nonsense and/or the latest move to exploit/shame/scare driven/desperate people to sacrifice their lives unsustainably for the wealth creation of others (and I take the comment you were replying to was criticising this as well)."
}
,
{
"id": "46524353",
"text": "996 is a work schedule that derives its name from its requirement that workers clock in from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, 6 days per week, resulting in employees working 12 hours per day and 72 hours per week."
}
,
{
"id": "46525155",
"text": "> shouldn't we be seeing a ton of 1 person startups\n\nHow do you know this is not happening. There is always a lag. By the time you visibly see it, its already past."
}
,
{
"id": "46534451",
"text": "> I see Bay area startups pushing 996 and requiring living in the Bay area because of the importance of working in an office to reduce communication hurdles.\n\nThis is toxic behavior by these companies, and is not backed by any empirical data that I’ve ever seen. It should be shunned and called out.\n\nAs far as the remainder of your post, I think you’ve uncovered solid evidence that the abilities of LLMs to code on their own, without human planning, architecting, and constant correction, is significantly oversold by most of the companies pushing the tech."
}
,
{
"id": "46524559",
"text": "My brother is selling a CRM he developed for his business to others for a couple thousand a month.\n\nThere is no way he would have built the CRM as quickly pre-AI.\n\nHe built, in a few months, what would have taken maybe one to two years before.\n\nIt's probably going to be a while before someone builds the next Instagram with AI. But I think that's more a function of product fit and idea. Less so how fast one person can code.\n\nThe first billion-dollar solopreneur likely is going to happen at some point, but it's still a one-in-a-million shot, no matter how fast a person can code.\n\nLook at how many startups fail despite plenty of money for programmers.\n\nBut I am seeing friends get to revenue faster with AI on small ideas."
}
,
{
"id": "46524836",
"text": "> The first billion-dollar solopreneur likely is going to happen at some point\n\nI'm pretty sure that this has already happened, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenty_of_Fish\n\nNot quite 1bn (but 575mn in 2015 dollars) and mostly done by one person."
}
,
{
"id": "46525871",
"text": "He began hiring in 2018.\n\nAlso, \"Plenty of Fish uses a Microsoft-based platform for itself, including IIS, ASP.NET, and Microsoft SQL\"."
}
,
{
"id": "46531087",
"text": "So if I make a website that uses Nginx, Ruby, and Postgres, does that mean that I don't get credit for making it since I use other tools?"
}
,
{
"id": "46531214",
"text": "No, I just brought attention to the stack because it's not \"sexy\"."
}
,
{
"id": "46526639",
"text": "I think the other issue is that the leading toolchain to get real work done (claude code) is also lacking multi modality generation, specifically imagegen. This makes design work more nuanced/technical. And in general, theres a lot of end-product UI/UX issues that generally require the operator to know their way around products. So while we are truly in a boom of really useful personalized software toolchains (and a new TUI product comes out every day), it will take a while for truly polished B2C products to ramp up. I guarantee 2026 sees a surge."
}
,
{
"id": "46524803",
"text": "Link to the crm? I'm asking because all tge crms I have encountered so far were vastly more complex than Instagram.\n\nI would actually expect that current coding AIs would create something very close to Instagram when instructed."
}
,
{
"id": "46530037",
"text": "Here it is: https://thedefinedcrm.com/\n\n> I would actually expect that current coding AIs would create something very close to Instagram when instructed\n\nAgree 100 percent! I think a lot of us are conflating writing software with building a business. Writing software is not equal to building a business.\n\nInstagram wasn't necessarily hard to code, it was just the right idea at the right time, well executed, combined with some good fortune.\n\nAI is enabling solo founders to launch faster, but those solo founders still need to know how to launch a successful business. Coding is only 10% of launching a business.\n\nMy brother has had some success selling software before AI, so he already knows how to launch a business. But, AI helped him take on a more ambitious idea."
}
,
{
"id": "46525491",
"text": "> My brother is selling a CRM he developed for his business to others for a couple thousand a month.\nThere is no way he would have built the CRM as quickly pre-AI\n\nThe thing is, if AI is what enabled this, there's no long term market for selling something vibe coded for thousands a month. Maybe right at this moment and good for him, but I have my doubts these random saas things have a future."
}
,
{
"id": "46526653",
"text": "Do you think you could build craigslist? Why are they worth so much?"
}
,
{
"id": "46526894",
"text": "I think that's comparing something different. I've seen the one-day vibe code UI tool things which are neat, but it feels like people miss the part that: if it's that easy now, it's not as valuable as it was in the past.\n\nIf you can sell it in the meantime, go for it and good for you, but it doesn't feel like that business model will stay around if anyone can prompt it themselves."
}
,
{
"id": "46524227",
"text": "A lot of people either a) don’t know about the good tools or b) aren’t using them enough/properly.\n\nThere is a ton of anti-AI sentiment, and not all LLMs are equal. There is a lot of individual adoption that is yet to occur.\n\nI know at least two startups that are one person or two people that are punching way above their weight due to this force multiplier. I don’t think it’s industry-wide yet, but it will be relatively soon.\n\nCheck back in on your assessment in a year."
}
]
</comments_to_classify>
Based on the comments above, assign each to up to 3 relevant topics.
Return ONLY a JSON array with this exact structure (no other text):
[
{
"id": "comment_id_1",
"topics": [
1,
3,
5
]
}
,
{
"id": "comment_id_2",
"topics": [
2
]
}
,
{
"id": "comment_id_3",
"topics": [
0
]
}
,
...
]
Rules:
- Each comment can have 0 to 3 topics
- Use 1-based topic indices for matches
- Use index 0 if the comment does not fit well in any category
- Only assign topics that are genuinely relevant to the comment
Remember: Output ONLY the JSON array, no other text.
50