This might be nothing, but something I was thinking about today was considering how verbose/ambitious Claude 3.7 is (in agent mode) in writing code/functions, is it inherently laying booby traps in Cursor?
As for a little context, I recently switched to 3.7 thinking to help me with an android app project that seemed to be getting too complex for 3.5 (yes, I have documentation, rules, etc.).
Case in point, upon implementing a new upload mechanism (and a minor package refactoring) I had 200 build errors on initial build. I was getting nowhere resolving these with 3.5, yet 3.7 thinking had them all knocked out within about an hour. 3.7 thinking also does, genuinely, improve the finished product by augmenting what I asked for with nice to have details.
However, in order to get all of this working, several of my files ballooned in size > 2X. I know I have duplicate functions and work-arounds for errors that have been fixed. Seems like this is part of the trade-off with 3.7, things work but they are over-built, over-engineered, and probably also often redundant and just generally āextraā. I have it on my list to clean this up later, but with a working app, this is secondary for obvious reasons.
This got me thinking though, if cost-controlled LLM-assisted IDEās naturally struggle with context windows, long files, multiple files with multi-level relationships, etc. then is this ambitious/verbose LLM model leading me down a primrose path to where someday the very tool creating these files (and this project) will not be able to manage it? How long until all of these over-built implementations (and especially attempts at solutions to bugs/errors) make the project so large and complex that there is no way to manage it anymore?
Obviously, a lot of this is specific to my use case. I am not a developer, yet I have a working, fairly complicated, custom android app which would have been IMPOSSIBLE any other way. For ~ $200-$300 in usage-based costs I have an app that I am certain would have cost $30K-$50K to have built. Not to mention, I went from concept to working app in under two months. Thatās bananas.
I feel like there are going to be all sorts of unintended consequences working with these tools, which are not only truly revolutionary, but enable people to jump the line and do things they probably shouldnāt (myself, for example).
The short answer is, future AI will probably fix the current AI, but for me at least, this reinforces the idea to never have it lost that these things are tools and as soon as I lose my ability to fully direct/lead/supervise/manage, I am the one who will eventually have to clean up the mess. It seems like these agentic systems can just be cut lose and be allowed to be autonomous. But, obviously, there is significant danger in that assumption.
Thatās just me running a business I suppose, but a good reminder nonetheless.