181–190 of 221 posts
Ever consider there's reasons to study Computer Science at the collegiate level, other than making yourself a more desirable worker?
Only if you’re so rich that your degree doesn’t need to pay for itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've recently been amplifying this excellent piece about that by Nilay Patel https://www.theverge.com/podcast/917029/software-brain-ai-ba... I don't need computer science professors to like LLMs, but I still want them to be able to poke at them with a stick without feeling like they are violating their principles regarding energy usage and unlicensed training data.
> I don't need computer science professors to like LLMs, but I still want them to be able to poke at them with a stick without feeling like they are violating their principles regarding energy usage and unlicensed training data. Why? Language models are interesting from a technical perspective, but so are tons of areas of CS. There's nothing inherently virtuous about using an LLM.
The academic field of computer science pretty much started as an exploration into whether machines could be built that could understand human language.
The Turing test dates back to Turing!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's messy, subject to commercial pressures, to a hierarchy of values that doesn't place "refactoring" at the top of the list. And why would it? Probably because it's a good way to be more profitable. Code that's easier to understand is easier to: maintain, generate new features for, fix bugs, onboard new engineers, etc Code that's well written: executes faster (saving computational costs), scales better, has highe…
Save us the patronizing tone. I am well aware of stupidity in industry. However, I am also wise enough to recognize the opposite error. (I myself have academic tendencies and a background aligned with that. I have chosen jobs that payed less, because the subject matter was more interesting for me. I'm not some vulgar, money-chasing techbro here.) The via media demands that we recognize the distinction between general…
Actually caring is what gives someone the itch to go back and improve things, versus happily calling it a day once minimum acceptable value has been delivered. The rampant enshittification of basically everything should make it clear which disposition is in short supply.
> Have the courage to go slowly, especially when everyone else is telling you that you need to go fast and cut corners.
The advice is aimed at students who haven’t yet decided which type they want to be. In fact it’s directly telling them to think for themselves and not blindly listen to you or anyone else here making the same case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's messy, subject to commercial pressures, to a hierarchy of values that doesn't place "refactoring" at the top of the list. And why would it? Probably because it's a good way to be more profitable. Code that's easier to understand is easier to: maintain, generate new features for, fix bugs, onboard new engineers, etc Code that's well written: executes faster (saving computational costs), scales better, has highe…
Save us the patronizing tone. I am well aware of stupidity in industry. However, I am also wise enough to recognize the opposite error. (I myself have academic tendencies and a background aligned with that. I have chosen jobs that payed less, because the subject matter was more interesting for me. I'm not some vulgar, money-chasing techbro here.) The via media demands that we recognize the distinction between general…
> Save us the patronizing tone.
> It doesn't tell us what the right course of action is in a particular situation.
> I'm not making some outrageous claim here.
>> Unlike algorithms and principles and even techniques, software is not eternal.
>> [Software] is ephemeral. It's shelf-life is bounded.
>> You're not refining some theory or some grasp of a Platonic ideal
>> Whether you should refactor something, when you should refactor something, is a matter of prudential judgement, which is to say, of practical reason.
There's something so off-putting about academics giving industry advice when they haven't spent a day working as an engineer at a company. > Care deeply about your craft. Refactor code until it is clear and elegant. Write good documentation for other humans to read. Have the courage to go slowly, especially when everyone else is telling you that you need to go fast and cut corners. Outside of the bit on avoiding cutt…
You were gifted a breath of fresh air, and thought only “well this does a terrible job of smelling like my room”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sense that the frustration you feel is that professors are able to make choices based on their values, but the average person is not. That is broadly speaking, of course. I think it is a great shame that we live in a modern world where we do we must to survive regardless of how it makes us feel. I suspect it is the root of much suffering.
Seriously. This thread is so depressing. It's like the entire software industry has given up and just accepted "increase speed forever at any cost" as some kind of iron law of software employment. Is nobody even pushing back anymore? Even offering token resistance? The 'bros have truly won. Our only imperative now is "Can we crush it in the market?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automatic coding systems have way too much economic value to be considered a "fad". I don't think you need to be Nostradamus to predict that we're never going back to manual coding. Sure, the systems will evolve and improve, but they're certainly not going anywhere.
> Automatic coding systems have way too much economic value to be considered a "fad". Which is why they very carefully worded it more as 'LLMs in their current form', twice.
"where technology is used to distract, extract, surveil, and kill" The first general purpose, programmable computer was designed in 1945 to calculate artillery firing tables for the US Army and was immediately used to help design nuclear weapons. Computers and all technology has always been, and will always be, used as a weapon (either directly or indirectly).
'Don't believe self-serving lies about technologies being "inevitable" or "here to stay". You don't have to just go along with the dominant narrative. You can make deliberate choices and help others to do the same.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked at a FAANG in a senior role for around 6 years and I completely agree with the article. (I left before LLM/agent use became widespread, but I would have flamed out anyway if it was forced upon me.)
It's scary just how quickly the past has been buried: Decades of accumulated insight on best practices, all discarded in service of the new electric Christ.