181–190 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we have a real inflection point now. I try it a bit every year and was always underwhelmed. Halfway through this year was the first time it really impressed me. I now use Claude Code.
But Claude Code costs money. You really want to introduce a critical dependency into your workflow that will simultaneously atrophy your skills and charge you subscription fees?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, people who bombard threads with insults based on the technology people use (a specific set of neural networks in this case) are…well, don’t have much better to do in life. you openly advocated for insulting and bullying people in your other comments. don’t back down with this “it’s just an observation” bs, own it! be you! …or change your behavior and be a better person, whatever works btw I’ve been…
0.1x
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we have a real inflection point now. I try it a bit every year and was always underwhelmed. Halfway through this year was the first time it really impressed me. I now use Claude Code.
But Claude Code costs money. You really want to introduce a critical dependency into your workflow that will simultaneously atrophy your skills and charge you subscription fees?
Some engineers don't dismiss LLMs. They dismiss the religion like hype machine. You want to market to engineers, stick to provable statements. And address some of their concerns. With something other than "AI is evolving constantly, all your problems will be solved in 6 months, just keep paying us." Oh by the way, what is the OP trying to sell with these FOMO tactics? Yet another ChatGPT frontend?
I think we should label devs overreliant on AI as "Engineers who dismiss themselves"
> "The engineers refusing to try aren’t protecting themselves; quite the opposite, they’re falling behind. The gap is widening between engineers who’ve integrated these tools and engineers who haven’t. The first group is shipping faster, taking on bigger challenges. The second group is… not." Honest question for the engineers here. Have you seen this happening at your company? Are strong engineers falling behind when…
The fact that i hear this mantra over and over again: "She wrote a thing in a day that would have taken me a month" This scares me. A lot. I never found the coding part to be a bottle neck, but the issues arise after the damn thing is in prod. If i work on something big (that will take me a month) thats going to be anywhere from (im winging these numbers) 10K LOC to 25K LOC). If thats a bechmark for me the next guy u…
This story ends up being relevant in a metaphorical way. My aunt was born in the 1940s, and was something of an old fashioned feminist. She didn't know why wasn't allowed to wear pants, or why she had to wait for the man to make the first move, etc. She tells a story about a man who ditched her at a dance once because she didn't know the "latest dance." Apparently in the 1950s, some idiot was always inventing a new d…
Predicting the future, I can tell you with certainty that This Too Shall Pass.
Just don't ask me what 'This' is: A fad, or a sea-change?
My main Luddite objection to the current passion for LLM coding assistance is the new dependencies created/fostered within the software engineering diaspora. Not only are we dependent now on cloud access for so much of our SE now, but we'll also depend on the ongoing build-out, as LLM infrastructure bulldozes our real-world landscape, and we experience change from DRAM shortages to unwanted (NIMBY) construction of data centers. All based on the idea (yet again) that this is it.
The question becomes, is it (or will it be) worth it?
My personal prism of past experience does not lend itself to an easy answer. The move from assembly language to C was a no-brainer, but I remember resisting a transition from C to C++ ("I can do that in C with structs and function pointers") and the surge in OOP and COM and... the list goes on.
I remember objecting to Rational Rose and UML because I just didn't trust code generated algorithmically. Boilerplate with artifacts. I don't think I was wrong to hesitate there.
But I might be wrong now, to let others push the leading bleeding edge. Maybe it's time to get into it.
Can I just download a trained LLM and host it myself, without a dependency on internet/cloud corporate/overlord/rented-infrastructure?
I am willing to try, but I must declare that-- where I am, the Personal Computing revolution is not over. We still haven't won. And the rebellion: against auto-updates, telemetry, subscription models, any usage or dependency of/on your internet against your will. The fight for freedom goes on.
Can I get a Claude Code to live in my home with me, air-gapped and all mine?
Will I spend all my time spanking the agent?
> The engineers refusing to try aren’t protecting themselves; quite the opposite, they’re falling behind. The gap is widening between engineers who’ve integrated these tools and engineers who haven’t. For me, however, there is one issue: how can I utilize AI without degenerating my own abilities? I use AI sparingly because, to be honest, every time I use AI, I feel like I'm getting a little dumber. I fear that excess…
The shareholders benefit this quarter. Look man, I know you probably have a high opinion of yourself and all, but your job now is to degrade your abilities in order to deliver faster results now. The investors kindly demand that you get with the program, enthusiastically accept your new role as a depreciating asset (not human capital to be invested in), and stop thinking so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Claude Code costs money. You really want to introduce a critical dependency into your workflow that will simultaneously atrophy your skills and charge you subscription fees?
It's also proprietary software running on someone else's machine. All other arguments for or against aside, I am surprised that so many people are okay with this. Not in a one-time use sense, necessarily, but to have long-term plans that this is what programming will be from here on out.
One does not need to embrace a tool to recognize its horrendous effects and side-effects. I can critique assault rifles without ever having handled one. I can critique street narcotics without taking drugs, and I can critique nuclear weapons without suffering from a blast personally. The idea that if you don't use a tool you can't form conclusions about why it's bad is devoid of any factual or historical grounding. It's an empty rhetorical device which can be used endlessly.
Literally 100% of the inventions which come out now or in the future can be handled in the exact same way. Somebody invents a robot arm that spoon feeds you so you never need to feed yourself with your own hand ever again? Oh this is revolutionary, everybody's going to install this in their home! What, you haven't? And you think it's a bad idea? Gosh, you're so backwards and foolish. The world is moving on, don't be left behind with your manual hand feeding techniques.
This article is like 1.5 years out of date. The discourse around genAI as a tech movement and its nearly uniformly terrible outcomes has moved on. OP hasn't. Seems the gap is widening between writers who are talking about these tools soberly and seriously, and writers who aren't.