If you see an orthopedic surgeon (the much more common name for this type of doctor in the US) about almost anything you will almost certainly end up with an MRI (good chance your insurance won't cover this fully) and some kind of recommended intervention.
"Most teams haven’t yet figured out how to build their own Ramp Inspect or Stripe Minions (if that’s you, reach out — we can help!) but basically everyone is at least using cursor in the side bar."
? What is your point? That the OP is obviously finically motived to encourage tokenmaxing?
Here’s what they said, $$$ aside:
> That’s no longer true. We’ve entered a different regime, where spending more tokens generally results in better results. We call this “compounding correctness” — the more tokens you spend on getting a task correct
> Compounding correctness flips the calculus. If more token spend leads to better outcomes, then you’re going to want to spend a lot of time running tokens. Which sure as hell sounds like tokenmaxxing to me! The original incentives to tokenmax are gone, but eventually folks will realize that a new and more powerful incentive has take its place.
> There were ways to get loops to work, but it was hard. You had to think a lot about how to prompt the agent, which in turn required a pretty deep familiarity with how these things work.
> Now, though, it’s easy. Compounding correctness makes it easy
Go on, tell me I’m quoting the OP out of context.
It’s pretty clear this person believes in compounding correctness, while other, more serious people (1) are perhaps more skeptical.
..and Armins company owns pi. You can’t get much more all in on AI.
Compounding correctness sounds cool, but the real examples of people spending lots of tokens are not compounding correctness; they are wide parallel exploration; like Mythos. The OP is confused, and wrong; they’ve made some basic (flawed) assumptions, and based their entire reasoning on them.
It's pretty disappointing that people on this site of all places have no idea what CEOs do. Many of them are certainly overpaid, and like any other profession, many are not good at their jobs, but they aren't sitting around drafting memos and coming up with deciding who to fire all day.
This is probably because the people who feel like they receive the most benefit from LLMs never actually knew much about or were just incapable of writing good software before they started using LLMs.
Receiving an absolute dung pile of half-broken implementation is honestly what I expect from most working software engineers. Now the step where they spend even a second thinking about what they are doing has been removed. My job as a principle engineer became doing most of the thinking for people and then providing the only worthwhile code reviews before LLMs became a thing. LLMs just made these people even less useful and my job became even more about reviewing their low quality work that I could have done in less time manually.
LLMs also don't solve the much bigger problem of most software engineers having no ability to work with others to clarify requests or offer alternatives. So now bad and/or misunderstood requests can be implemented faster.
