131–140 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I ran the post past an LLM for some ideas on clarity and tightening it up - but I wrote, edited, and published it myself.
It's too bad it has so much grating LLM-voice. I don't think you typed all the LLM-isms, and they make it hard to know how much to trust that the rest is what you intended to convey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absolutely not true. The places that have embraced "agentic engineering" are mostly garbage factories, and lots of places, including plenty of startups and fast-moving companies are staying off of this trend. I recognize that most of the people on this site are just trying to self-promote for their own gig, but the level of misinformation is sometimes just staggering.
Want something to be terrified of? I work at a massive health care company. They're 100% on the AI bandwagon and are putting AI everywhere they can. Billing, Software, DevOps, everywhere. If you think you can give an Agent some information and have go to work for some user, its 100% on the table for the company to do and either a) then outsource the rest offshore or b) lay the person off or shrink the department to i…
You’d think our plans would be cheaper given they’re offloading all this work to agents they don’t have to pay a salary to…right?
I just do not want to deal with other people's AI-generated code.
Your AI can rewrite it to your own standards for free. You can tell your AI to read their code, and create a new requirements document for a clean-room implementation. Then you have your AI implement using your own requirements document.
We're so screwed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there’s no increased productivity then what’s the point in spending all the money?
I didn't say there was or there wasn't. They just don't get to infer that I did and then attack that as my position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Most knowledge work is about coordination between people and transporting the right information to the people that are thinking and the people that are doing (not always separate groups, but can be one group switching mode). You need people because there's a lot of shared context between individuals in society that is not encoded anywhere.
A year ago everyone was sure these things couldn’t write functional code. A few months ago people started saying they need to be operated by people who could otherwise write the code. It sounds like we’re headed towards… the guy in Office Space who took specifications from the customer via a secretary and gave those to the engineers (and we know what happened to him). But I’m not sure that’s a thing, at least for lon…
Even ChatGPT could write code when it came out.
> It was that they could very competently extract meaning from natural language, debug what you were saying from the terrible way you expressed it, and still formulate competent answers
“Competent” is doing a lot of work here. If it were so, AI woul take change requests directly from the business side and put the implementation immediately in production. But instead, all you see are FOMO propaganda to get devs to adopt the tool with no asking if it actually helps the devs do their job.
This sounds right to me: > Before AI, both camps were doing the same thing every day. Writing code by hand. Using the same editors, the same languages, the same pull request workflows. The craft-lovers and the make-it-go people sat next to each other, shipped the same products, looked indistinguishable. The motivation behind the work was invisible because the process was identical. Helps explain why some people are d…
I, for one, remember when I could crash Netscape Navigator by using CSS too hard (i.e. at all) or trying to make a thing move 10px with DHTML. But I kept trying to make browser to thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have human reviews on every PR. There are some studies about maintaining attention over longer periods of time when there is no action required. It will be difficult to keep that up forever so beware of review fatigue and bake in some measures to ensure that attention does not diminish over time.
The point of reviews is that the process of reviews is a feedback cycle where we can identify where our docs are short. We then immediately update the docs to reflect the correction. Over enough time, this gap closes and the need for reviews goes down. This is what I've noticed as we've continued to improve the docs: PRs have stabilized. Mid-level devs that just months ago were producing highly variant levels of qual…
There will never be a point when human reviews will be less needed; you're doomed to ship something horribly insecure at some point, if you ever remove them; please don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A year ago everyone was sure these things couldn’t write functional code. A few months ago people started saying they need to be operated by people who could otherwise write the code. It sounds like we’re headed towards… the guy in Office Space who took specifications from the customer via a secretary and gave those to the engineers (and we know what happened to him). But I’m not sure that’s a thing, at least for lon…
> A year ago everyone was sure these things couldn’t write functional code Even ChatGPT could write code when it came out. > It was that they could very competently extract meaning from natural language, debug what you were saying from the terrible way you expressed it, and still formulate competent answers “Competent” is doing a lot of work here. If it were so, AI woul take change requests directly from the business…
If (big if) LLMs/AI take over all of knowledge work the first thing you'll notice is that the first company getting to the point of automating all knowledge work will close off their models to the public, not advertise it, and take over every business on the planet.
You wouldn't waste a dime on advertising, influencers, or convincing people to use your product.
Taking over every business in the world seems more lucrative than selling $20 subscriptions to people.