321–330 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also documents itself extensively
But then you’ll use it to change something, and it won’t update any of the extensive documentation. So then it’s filled with lies.
It'll mention the old version then the change, and the relating tickets.
A natural evolution of engineers losing touch with the customers and users. I'm noticing some of the concern play out regarding AI weakening the capabilities of software people. I gave the team an exact solution on a silver platter and they still failed to identify how to go about it after 3 days slamming it into Claude. The resolution is literally 1 line of code that could be arrived at in about 30 minutes of patien…
It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself. EDIT: don’t get me wrong. I still think AI is incredibly useful for a lot of tasks! But when implementing an architecturally hairy thing, I find it less stressful and equally quick to jump down…
You might as well have left it with: "It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it". That's the core of the issue. It doesn't matter what you ask it to do, it can't be trusted. Some things are just easier to verify and correct than others.
The comparison with Pilots is bit disjoint one cause the domain varies a lot for every company and product. Coming up with synthetic simulations within every domain is like paying money twice for the same thing, why not let the engineers to handle the real incidents in the first place itself. In fact why not spend some more thought into building better systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also read that comment as an adversarial situation at work. It used to be that when someone else at your company was asking for something that wasn't a priority, you would erect bureaucratic roadblocks to protect your time. Now, the new normal is to just forward their questions to AI and sling the slop back over to them.
Someone outside the team "giving you a solution" is seldom a great thing in my experience
A natural evolution of engineers losing touch with the customers and users. I'm noticing some of the concern play out regarding AI weakening the capabilities of software people. I gave the team an exact solution on a silver platter and they still failed to identify how to go about it after 3 days slamming it into Claude. The resolution is literally 1 line of code that could be arrived at in about 30 minutes of patien…
I'm seeing this happen in the security space right now. Someone on my team I was helping train and bring along is all of sudden regressing in their understanding of the issues we're working on, and instead focusing on AI tool outputs to do their job for them.
Any CISO or head of security loves the ideal of completely using AI to handle incidents, tune detections, implement mitigations, track vulnerabilities, pen testing, etc. This feels like it driving security teams to have less critical thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also documents itself extensively
But then you’ll use it to change something, and it won’t update any of the extensive documentation. So then it’s filled with lies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean, "advocating for better treatment"? They're not describing an abuse of tradespeople and professionals. They're adults doing a job.
So, from your comment and your reply, are you just happy that more people are being treated poorly? That makes no sense. You seem to understand that he was being snarky, so why do you not understand that that snark and desire to see “others” brought down to a lower level just because some were already there doesn’t help anyone? Actually, that division does help people, those people that are putting people there in th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself. EDIT: don’t get me wrong. I still think AI is incredibly useful for a lot of tasks! But when implementing an architecturally hairy thing, I find it less stressful and equally quick to jump down…
> It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself. You might as well have left it with: "It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it". That's the core of the issue. It doesn't matter what you ask it to do, it can't be trusted.…
I dunno about that - whenever I ask it if I'm any good, I remain confident that it will assure me that I am!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen people report cleaner code by forbidding agents from writing comments. Anecdotal, but interesting.
Mozilla's Firefox AGENTS.md begins with: Limit the amount of comments you put in the code to a strict minimum. You should almost never add comments, except sometimes on non-trivial code, function definitions if the arguments aren't self-explanatory, and class definitions and their members. Do not remove existing comments unless they are directly related to what you are changing. https://searchfox.org/firefox-main/sou…