I aint reading all this with the animated live user bar at the bottom.
Gaslight-driven development
21–30 of 113 posts
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#22>Well, now there is a new way to serve our silicon overlords. LLMs started to have opinions on how your API should look we have code review by LLM. There is no point or a way to argue. Just submit to the wishes of the overlord, resistance is futile.
For some reason this reminds me of the conversation I had with a guy who didn't like the lane keeping assist on his car. He didn't like that it vibrated the steering wheel when he changed lanes without using the blinker.
Yep, i'd not like it too - changing lanes requires increased attention and now during the maneuver you steering wheel starts to vibrate out-of-the-blue.
That isn't to argue about using of the blinker, it is about the way the assist is implemented in this case - it doesn't help directly with the blinker, instead it punishes you and thus stress-injects-and-conditions you for the instinct to use blinker next time. Net positive probably for the driver and society thus demonstrating again that forcing individual submission is an effective way to social harmony.
And blinker is just very mild use case. LLMs can already today in some cases and will be more and more tomorrow able to recognize when your behavior isn't legal and/or isn't very moral (like it would hear that you say and see what you text on the phone and would for example recognize a drug buying - pardon such a primitive simplicity, it is just a caricaturish exampl for illustration purposes only - and we've already established a tendency of LLMs to rat you out to authorities) and thus LLM can act to warn you about or even prevent your actions and/or report you to authorities, probably even before you actually commit anything.
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#23> for example, we used tx.update for both inserting and updating entities, but LLMs kept writing tx.create instead. Guess what: we now have tx.create, too. If a function can both insert and update, it should be called "put". Using "update" is misleading.
Upsert?
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#24If it were somehow a human that was consistently and confidently handing out made up programming advice about one's products, would companies still respond by just adding whatever imagined feature and writing a vaguely bemused blog post about it?
Maybe I can start pretending I’m an LLM and see if that gets me a pass when I make silly mistakes or hallucinate in entirely the wrong direction. As long as I look confident doing so.
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#25If it were somehow a human that was consistently and confidently handing out made up programming advice about one's products, would companies still respond by just adding whatever imagined feature and writing a vaguely bemused blog post about it?
Maybe I can start pretending I’m an LLM and see if that gets me a pass when I make silly mistakes or hallucinate in entirely the wrong direction. As long as I look confident doing so.
We don’t talk about PMs here. (/s)
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#26> for example, we used tx.update for both inserting and updating entities, but LLMs kept writing tx.create instead. Guess what: we now have tx.create, too. If a function can both insert and update, it should be called "put". Using "update" is misleading.
Upsert?
Lets just do all variations and have the llm guess it right the first time.
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#27I aint reading all this with the animated live user bar at the bottom.
Didn't realize so many Canadians on HN
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#28I like seeing what users are currently viewing the same page, but man the constant jostling of users coming and going made it hard to read the post.
isn't this the page that used to have cursors everywhere in the background? I think the distracting design is some intentional running joke at this point
Try "dark mode" foe further trolling.
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#29I don't agree with the thesis of this post. It is begging the question of if we have to do what computers want.
> Millions of people create accounts, confirm emails, ... not because they particularly want to or even need to.
These were design choices made by humans, not computers.
Re: Gaslight-driven development
#30If it were somehow a human that was consistently and confidently handing out made up programming advice about one's products, would companies still respond by just adding whatever imagined feature and writing a vaguely bemused blog post about it?
No they would confidently assert they need the dumb thing you keep saying.