11–20 of 74 posts
I feel this has more importance than they think. Outside consultants would not have had this domain knowledge and would have spent months learning it. And then would have had to fix their mistakes because they misunderstood something (billed to the province, naturally)
Super disappointed to see most of the comments just complaining about AI and not engaging with the contents of the article.
Writing quality was distracting. Very breathey. Hard to understand if I was getting important information or not -- but it's ok, some people will defend this style.
This is really awesome work. Solving these legacy IT problems in government is under appreciated. Love that you all were able to accomplish this. Super disappointed to see most of the comments just complaining about AI and not engaging with the contents of the article.
I searched this report for "test". Result: none found. > what if a small team of public servants, equipped with modern AI development tools, built the replacement systems themselves? Next: bridges and brain surgery.
On the one hand, yes. On the other, procurement is so broken, that if their inhouse team is only marginally better, it's a win.
As flawed as this new approach might turn out to be, the traditional approach may (or may not) have an even worse probability of success.
That's kind of amazing. Alberta has a conservative govt so I am surprised "in-house" got the pass over "outside company". It is good to see fiscal conservatism over 'govt-bad' conservatism. Hats off to the deputy minister et al. for approving this.
Using Google Gemini to generate requirements/spec document from video is amazing. I wonder what the prompt looked like and if there was custom support to help process the videos.
Thankfully they added that horrible AIslop image right in the beginning of the article, so I knew instantly to not trust the author on anything.
Well, Nate Glubish seems to be the Minister of Technology and Innovation of Alberta.
It was some intern...
Great idea, and hopefully great results. But it’s written like LinkedIn “broetry” and that AI image at the top promises a fluffy article. Maybe expand a bit on some of the impressive tech described in the body?
I’m at the point where if I see an AI image at the start of an article I just back right out. It would be so much better if the author just didn’t include an image at all. What did this image actually add to the content of the post? If you’re just doing something for the sake of doing it you’ve lost the plot.
Writing quality was distracting. Very breathey. Hard to understand if I was getting important information or not -- but it's ok, some people will defend this style.