91–100 of 217 posts
As I understand it, the purpose of management is to match financial resources with material+human resources to perform feasible tasks. There is nothing here I see that can't be done by an experienced token generator. If anything, automating management seems easier than automating engineering.
As for leadership, it can be done by the investors.
Too many teams and organizations have business types, mostly PM's who seek to lord over their area of know how and see themselves as delegators and mini CEOs, actively avoid looping engineers in to validate themselves. Engineers need to take on PM roles, and the PM role needs to be 1:50+ eng or go.
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
This was my stance a couple of years ago, but now I've given it up.
It turns out writing actually was the bottleneck. You can understand perfectly well what you want, but writing it is long and tedious to the point where you find excuses not to do it. Particularly with version 2, the step where you have an OK system and you want to improve it. Quite a lot of changing the code is just useless busywork: re-wiring old functions, moving imports around, searching for locations that benefit from extracting a common piece of code. And each time you do one of those, there's a decent chance you did something even more trivial like forgetting a semicolon or calling the wrong function.
Now that I have an LLM helping me, I can see why. The critical decision is a terse declarative like "we need to have several TCP connections instead of one, and just use the sequence number to arbitrate". A human junior programmer could perfectly well understand what this meant, but he would have to go through all of the above to get to the final product. Now, I can just tell the LLM and I will get what I want, even with the things I didn't explicitly state, without spending attention.
This means I can use my attention on the things that matter. So instead of spending today thinking about how to arbitrate between the TCP connections and tomorrow thinking about pre-calculating my outgoing orders, I can just do both today. I don't waste the good waking hours chasing minor bugs, I just think about the large structure.
I get the feeling the best programmers of years past were actually masters of the little things, which led them to be able to look at the big things. Essentially it was cheaper for them to get to the top of the mountain, where you can see the landscape. Kinda like how the kid who was good at mental arithmetic in primary school was also good at calculus at the end of high school: if you don't have to concentrate on the little things, you have time for the big things.
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
The key I’ve found is human peer review. The reviewer jumps on a live call with the developer, pulls up the PR with transcription on, and asks questions. At the end of the call, the transcript passes back into the coding agent and the PR is polished up, becoming more self-documenting, and the humans are left with some degree of common understanding of what’s going on.
I’ve been operating my team of ~15 this way for 9mo to great effect… there is simply no going back to the stone ages.
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
How do you handle the fact that an LLM can't seem to help itself from disgorging page after page of words no matter what it's asked to do? I've never seen an LLM say "this looks good as-is; I would not spend any more time on it; what's next?" it will always seem to suggest using another pattern or additional abstractions or other yak shaving. But to be fair human code reviews have the same problem. It's like reviewer…
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
> The other thing that the "LLMs write code camp" misunderstands is that writing was never the bottleneck. Understanding was. And understanding the code is still the bottleneck. But understanding is truly gained during the writing loop. The understanding you gain from pure reading or code review is marginal compared to the understanding you gain while writing. This was my stance a couple of years ago, but now I've gi…
Speak for yourself. Writing code has never been a bottleneck for some of us. I can't speak for everyone, and neither should you.
>Now, I can just tell the LLM and I will get what I want, even with the things I didn't explicitly state, without spending attention.
This should worry you. All too often the LLM invents things I didn't ask for and implements things I didn't need. YMMV, I guess. If slop gets the job done, and nobody notices, then who should care?
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
> The other thing that the "LLMs write code camp" misunderstands is that writing was never the bottleneck. Understanding was. And understanding the code is still the bottleneck. But understanding is truly gained during the writing loop. The understanding you gain from pure reading or code review is marginal compared to the understanding you gain while writing. This was my stance a couple of years ago, but now I've gi…
how did you decide to pick the most trivial kind regression for this example? do you compile your code before checking it in?
> A human junior programmer could perfectly well understand what this meant, but he would have to go through all of the above to get to the final product. Now, I can just tell the LLM and I will get what I want, even with the things I didn't explicitly state, without spending attention.
the main efficiency you have described here is offloading the verification of a change onto the LLM. that is the bottleneck. readers can decide whether a non-deterministic statistical model is a good tool for this job
> I get the feeling the best programmers of years past were actually masters of the little things, which led them to be able to look at the big things
the best programmers understand that their job is to automate workflows, and that includes their own. if you're worried about missing a semicolon, I'm sorry to say that's a skill issue
I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption. The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that. Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally r…
I’ve found that doing the full requirements capture, planning, writing, reviewing, gardening loop with frontier models has worked quite well since last October, and phenomenally since Fable 5. The key I’ve found is human peer review. The reviewer jumps on a live call with the developer, pulls up the PR with transcription on, and asks questions. At the end of the call, the transcript passes back into the coding agent…
Can I watch/observe one of your review sessions?
Every few weeks, I hear the beginnings of a great approach towards working with LLMs but I rarely see it in practice.
If you're open to this, remote or in person, ping my username at gmail.