901–910 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if seniors still do the last mile, that’s a significant reduction from the full commute they were paid for previously. Are you saying seniors should concede this?
No, I think there's cases in which if you can't do the last mile, you aren't entrusted to do the first either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is satire, right? The completely off-topic mentioning of your graphics programming skills, the overconfidence, the phrase "delve into"... Let me guess: The prompt was "Write a typical HN response to this post"
This made me chuckle. But at the same time a bit uneasy because this could mean my own way of expressing myself online might've been impacted by reading too much AI drivel whilst trying to find signal in the noisy internet landscape... The off-topic mentioning of graphics programming was because I tend to type as I think, then make corrections, and as I re-read it now the paragraph isn't great. The intent was to give…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I am constantly surprised how prevalent this attitude is. ChatGPT was only just released in 2022. Is there some expectation that these things won't improve? > LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test This is ego speaking.
Even since ChatGPT 3.5 AI coding has been astoundingly good. Like you, I'm totally baffled by developers who say it's not. And I'm not just unskilled and unable to judge. I have 35yrs experience! I've been shocked and impressed from day one, how good AI is. I've even seen Github Copilot do thing that almost resemble mind-reading insofar as predicting what I'm about to type next. It predicts some things it should NOT…
But, generally I don’t see AI as currently such a boon to productivity that it would eliminate programming. Right now, it’s no where near as disruptive as easy to install shared libraries (e.g. npm). Sure, I get lines of code here and there from AI, but in the 90’s I was programming lots of stuff that I just get instantaneously for free with constant updates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fav anecdote from ages ago: When hand-held power tools became a thing, the Hollywood set builder’s union was afraid of this exact same thing - people would be replaced by the tools. Instead, productions built bigger sets (the ceiling was raised) and smaller productions could get in on things (the floor was lowered). I always took that to mean “people aren’t going to spend less to do the job - they’ll just do a bigger…
The saddle, the stirrup, the horseshoe, the wagon, the plough, and the drawbar all enhanced the productivity of horses and we only ended up employing more of them. Then the steam engine and internal combustion engine came around and work horses all but disappeared. There's no economic law that says a new productivity-enhancing programming tool is always a stirrup and never a steam engine.
All the tools that are stirrups were used "by the horse" (you get what I mean); that implies to me that so long as the AI tools are used by the programmers (what we've currently got), they're stirrups.
The steam engines were used by the people "employing the horse" - ala, "people don't buy drills they buy holes" (people don't employ horses, they move stuff) - so that's what to look for to see what's a steam engine.
IMHO, as long as all this is "telling the computer what to do", it's stirrups, because that's what we've been doing. If it becomes something else, then maybe it's a steam engine.
And, to repeat - thank you for this point, it's an excellent one, and provides some good language for talking about it.
Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…
This is denial. LLMs already write code at a senior level. Couple that with solid tests and a human code reviewer and we’re already at 5x the story points per sprint at the startup I work at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The arrogance of comments like this is amazing. I think it's an interesting psychological phenomenon similar to virtue signalling. Here you are signalling to the programmer in-group how good of a programmer you are. The more dismissive you are the better you look. Anyone worried about it reveals themself as a bad coder. It's a luxury belief, and the better LLMs get the better you look by dismissing them.
This is spot on. It's essentially like saying "What I do in particular, is much too difficult for an AI to ever replicate." It is always in part, humble bragging. I think some developers like to pretend that they are exclusively solving problems that have never been solved before. Which sure, the LLM architecture in particular might never be better than a person for the novel class of problem. But the reality is, an…
Looks like the virtue signalling is done on both sides of the AI fence.
Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…
So your argument is: There is some tech that is getting progressively better. I am high on the linear scale Therefore I don't worry about it cathing up to me ever And this is the top voted argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing an LLM to an industrial textile machine is laughable, because one is consistent and reliable while the other is not.
It's laughable only if you think that the only reasonable metric is "consistent and reliable". The parent says "it typically doesn't matter that the product is worse if it's cheap enough". And that seems valid to me: the average quality of software today seems to be worse than 10 years ago. We do worse but cheaper.
You don't remember Windows Vista? Windows ME?
I think you have that view because of survivor's bias. Only the good old software is still around today. There was plenty of garbage that barely worked being shipped 10 years ago.