harsh deep (@harshcodesdev) header
harsh deep (@harshcodesdev) profile picture

21, fullstack eng || ex Product Intern @Adobe

India
Joined December 2022
harsh deep retweeted
Getting a dream job 1. Know what you want 2. Build proof of excellence 3. Create more chances to get lucky 4. Understand how to convert attention
2
9
1
157
17,253
harsh deep retweeted
I do not fear failure. I fear mediocrity. I will either end up building billion dollar company(s) or be homeless
70
59
16
1,194
39,400
harsh deep retweeted
Training LoRAs with Krea 2 on @fal has been the most fun I've had in a while. Here are a few examples. In the next few days, I'll be releasing what is probably the largest public Style LoRA library built with Krea 2.
11
11
1
241
10,770
harsh deep retweeted
The fastest way to change your life is to rip yourself out of your (physical and digital) environment. Change everything overnight. The places you go, the accounts you follow, the info you consume, etc. It's difficult but it absolutely works.
402
1,262
69
11,217
412,723
Indian firms can get GPUs, which is not a problem (for now), but talent is a big, big problem. Indian companies just do not have it in them to pay people multi-million dollar compensation. An equally difficult problem is to convince such people to work in India. I feel that even if Silicon Valley-level comp was on offer, most people in that league would baulk at the idea of living in Indian cities. The solution is to open an office in Dubai or Singapore. That could also open the door to non Indian talent. A $10B spend is possible if 3-4 Indian ITES companies combine forces.
To train a GPT class 1T model from scratch - including failed runs, data acq+clean+rlhf, post-training, team/people will likely req $250M of compute on an aggressive 3-4mo schedule (i.e. more reserved GPUs), $500-600M all-in IF you do a dense one. MoE + fp8 will cut costs by 1/10th depending on how many active params you have. If you want SOTA however, the budgets go significantly higher on test-time compute, post-training RL, and data/synthetic generations..and v. high on talent. Maybe $2-4B all-in. After that comes serving the model. The talent is key to get to SOTA/beat it - and then you have to ensure this is useful enough to have inference vol over time - for which the capital will come if there is usage / TAM. So this is not as much about raising $50-60B, or raising it all at once as the OP says - we are investors in mistral, sarvam, reflection and anthropic - and they all scaled capital over time as models got adoption, but the early bottleneck is more on talent + GPUs at that scale where you can do interesting things.
60
33
9
428
54,121
harsh deep retweeted
🌘 Kimi-K2.7-Code, our latest coding model, is now released and open-sourced! 🔷 Improved coding & agent performance over K2.6: +21.8% on Kimi Code Bench v2, +11.0% on Program Bench, and +31.5% on MLS Bench Lite. 🔷 Reasoning efficiency: Less overthinking, with 30% lower reasoning-token usage compared to K2.6. 🔷 Long-horizon coding: Improved instruction following, higher end-to-end coding task success rates. ⚡️ 6x High-Speed Mode coming soon! 🔌 Available today via Kimi API and Kimi Code. 🔗 Kimi Code: kimi.com/code 🔗 API: platform.moonshot.ai
645
1,670
711
13,850
2,695,838
harsh deep retweeted
This is the the quote I've been citing a lot recently.
you can outsource your thinking but you cannot outsource your understanding
850
4,347
273
46,577
2,779,043
harsh deep retweeted
every morning i wake up to startups raising tens of millions for incredible ideas like > agents that call APIs > meeting note taker > copilots for copilots > revenue agent > agents pay to chat > software to build software and yet another idea-to-app slop. seriously, how can someone be bullish on these?
29
11
8
201
19,634
harsh deep retweeted
which way anon?
18
6
2
279
20,409
Every engineer I know has asked this at some point: "How deep should I actually go?" According to me, the decision to go deep down the rabbit hole comes down to two things: 1. curiosity - what genuinely pulls you in 2. career direction - where you want to be in the next 2/3 years, not where the internet says you should be My honest take: depth works best when it serves at least one of those. Ideally, both. If something aligns with your career direction, going deep is an obvious win. One simple way to test this is to think in 2/3 year windows and ask yourself: Does understanding this layer actually move me closer to where I want to be? If you are building web apps, you do not need to master CPU instruction sets. If you are working on databases, B-tree internals matter far more than knowing every Linux kernel detail. Context changes what "deep" really means. Abstraction layers exist for a reason. They let you build without getting overwhelmed. A frontend engineer who understands HTTP is usually more valuable than one who has memorized TCP packet headers but struggles to ship features. If something does not align with your career direction, curiosity still matters. Learning out of pure interest is not wasted time. You do it because it optimizes for motivation, long-term learning, and happiness. What does not make much sense is going deep in areas that serve neither curiosity nor direction - often driven by comparison or fear. So keep checking in with yourself. Ask questions. Course-correct often. Depth is most powerful when it is intentional.
18
75
5
880
37,891
harsh deep retweeted
Defending MiniMax I think it’s fine they set up a license. We kind of deserve it. You work on something with dozens of people burning through investment money. Put it out to the world for free. People say you’re benchmaxxing, call you a communist spy, take your models and sell them. Demand more from you. You deal with this for a year, your peer’s models are being used in the west with little to no credits, same story. They released the research, gave us the weights, released the environments, proved you can max 230B params competitive. Thank you MiniMax. I hope you win more and more.
72
65
15
1,383
70,448
harsh deep retweeted
Replying to @NirDiamantAI
Peter Steinberger told me that he wants PR to be "prompt request". His agents are perfectly capable of implementing most ideas, so there is no need to take your idea, expand it into a vibe coded mess using free tier ChatGPT and send that as a PR, which is now most PRs.
75
113
53
2,529
312,639
harsh deep retweeted
Vibe coding is more addictive than any video game ever made (if you know what you want to build).
1,811
2,888
734
29,471
1,800,645
harsh deep retweeted
It's time to build.
845
2,483
786
15,435
3,289,574
harsh deep retweeted
Vibe coding is the new product management. Training and tuning models is the new coding.
992
2,059
342
20,584
1,256,512
harsh deep retweeted
A few random notes from claude coding quite a bit last few weeks. Coding workflow. Given the latest lift in LLM coding capability, like many others I rapidly went from about 80% manual+autocomplete coding and 20% agents in November to 80% agent coding and 20% edits+touchups in December. i.e. I really am mostly programming in English now, a bit sheepishly telling the LLM what code to write... in words. It hurts the ego a bit but the power to operate over software in large "code actions" is just too net useful, especially once you adapt to it, configure it, learn to use it, and wrap your head around what it can and cannot do. This is easily the biggest change to my basic coding workflow in ~2 decades of programming and it happened over the course of a few weeks. I'd expect something similar to be happening to well into double digit percent of engineers out there, while the awareness of it in the general population feels well into low single digit percent. IDEs/agent swarms/fallability. Both the "no need for IDE anymore" hype and the "agent swarm" hype is imo too much for right now. The models definitely still make mistakes and if you have any code you actually care about I would watch them like a hawk, in a nice large IDE on the side. The mistakes have changed a lot - they are not simple syntax errors anymore, they are subtle conceptual errors that a slightly sloppy, hasty junior dev might do. The most common category is that the models make wrong assumptions on your behalf and just run along with them without checking. They also don't manage their confusion, they don't seek clarifications, they don't surface inconsistencies, they don't present tradeoffs, they don't push back when they should, and they are still a little too sycophantic. Things get better in plan mode, but there is some need for a lightweight inline plan mode. They also really like to overcomplicate code and APIs, they bloat abstractions, they don't clean up dead code after themselves, etc. They will implement an inefficient, bloated, brittle construction over 1000 lines of code and it's up to you to be like "umm couldn't you just do this instead?" and they will be like "of course!" and immediately cut it down to 100 lines. They still sometimes change/remove comments and code they don't like or don't sufficiently understand as side effects, even if it is orthogonal to the task at hand. All of this happens despite a few simple attempts to fix it via instructions in CLAUDE . md. Despite all these issues, it is still a net huge improvement and it's very difficult to imagine going back to manual coding. TLDR everyone has their developing flow, my current is a small few CC sessions on the left in ghostty windows/tabs and an IDE on the right for viewing the code + manual edits. Tenacity. It's so interesting to watch an agent relentlessly work at something. They never get tired, they never get demoralized, they just keep going and trying things where a person would have given up long ago to fight another day. It's a "feel the AGI" moment to watch it struggle with something for a long time just to come out victorious 30 minutes later. You realize that stamina is a core bottleneck to work and that with LLMs in hand it has been dramatically increased. Speedups. It's not clear how to measure the "speedup" of LLM assistance. Certainly I feel net way faster at what I was going to do, but the main effect is that I do a lot more than I was going to do because 1) I can code up all kinds of things that just wouldn't have been worth coding before and 2) I can approach code that I couldn't work on before because of knowledge/skill issue. So certainly it's speedup, but it's possibly a lot more an expansion. Leverage. LLMs are exceptionally good at looping until they meet specific goals and this is where most of the "feel the AGI" magic is to be found. Don't tell it what to do, give it success criteria and watch it go. Get it to write tests first and then pass them. Put it in the loop with a browser MCP. Write the naive algorithm that is very likely correct first, then ask it to optimize it while preserving correctness. Change your approach from imperative to declarative to get the agents looping longer and gain leverage. Fun. I didn't anticipate that with agents programming feels *more* fun because a lot of the fill in the blanks drudgery is removed and what remains is the creative part. I also feel less blocked/stuck (which is not fun) and I experience a lot more courage because there's almost always a way to work hand in hand with it to make some positive progress. I have seen the opposite sentiment from other people too; LLM coding will split up engineers based on those who primarily liked coding and those who primarily liked building. Atrophy. I've already noticed that I am slowly starting to atrophy my ability to write code manually. Generation (writing code) and discrimination (reading code) are different capabilities in the brain. Largely due to all the little mostly syntactic details involved in programming, you can review code just fine even if you struggle to write it. Slopacolypse. I am bracing for 2026 as the year of the slopacolypse across all of github, substack, arxiv, X/instagram, and generally all digital media. We're also going to see a lot more AI hype productivity theater (is that even possible?), on the side of actual, real improvements. Questions. A few of the questions on my mind: - What happens to the "10X engineer" - the ratio of productivity between the mean and the max engineer? It's quite possible that this grows *a lot*. - Armed with LLMs, do generalists increasingly outperform specialists? LLMs are a lot better at fill in the blanks (the micro) than grand strategy (the macro). - What does LLM coding feel like in the future? Is it like playing StarCraft? Playing Factorio? Playing music? - How much of society is bottlenecked by digital knowledge work? TLDR Where does this leave us? LLM agent capabilities (Claude & Codex especially) have crossed some kind of threshold of coherence around December 2025 and caused a phase shift in software engineering and closely related. The intelligence part suddenly feels quite a bit ahead of all the rest of it - integrations (tools, knowledge), the necessity for new organizational workflows, processes, diffusion more generally. 2026 is going to be a high energy year as the industry metabolizes the new capability.
1,631
5,575
1,458
40,707
7,866,149
How to become expert at thing: 1 iteratively take on concrete projects and accomplish them depth wise, learning “on demand” (ie don’t learn bottom up breadth wise) 2 teach/summarize everything you learn in your own words 3 only compare yourself to younger you, never to others
179
2,768
446
14,673
harsh deep retweeted
The right model to think about productivity in software engineering is to consider that each engineer is backed by an infinite army of robots.
82
363
42
3,778
harsh deep retweeted
13 years. RIP my darling boy.
503
1,885
276
19,963
1,946,069
Thinking is not a talent you have; it is a habit you build.
46
27
5
849
30,063