[deleted]
Grief and the AI split
231–240 of 404 posts
Re: Grief and the AI split
#232The real split is between people that believe technological progress is good by itself and by the law of nature it always makes life better and easier, and people that know the history and know that stuff like 8 hours workday wasn't spat out of steam machine - it had to be fought for through political struggle, because actual "natural" consequence of increased productivity was increase in workload.
The real split is between the capital owners, who live on our labour, typically through inheritance of a piece of paper that says they own a percentage of what I make.
[deleted]
Re: Grief and the AI split
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speed has a lot to do with it, yeah. A.I. is now often doing in 5-10 minutes what would take me hours on my own for any given task (well based on the last couple of weeks at least, I wasn't doing much agent based A.I. coding before that). I was pretty much having a real-time conversation with my superiors, showing them updates just a couple of minutes after they suggested them, for a feature the other day, getting fe…
> I was pretty much having a real-time conversation with my superiors, showing them updates just a couple of minutes after they suggested them, for a feature the other day, getting feedback on how something should look. Seems like a nightmare.
I did choose to do it, so it wasn't a nightmare. I was wanting extra guidance on what to include, and so I asked them (while they both weren't busy), they gave me feedback, I did that in like a minute or two with A.I. (when normally it would have taken me a lot longer), so I showed them and was like 'how's this?' and they said 'could you change it to be like this?' etc back and forth for about 45 minutes. It was about the equivalent of a call except it was over Slack and I could provide something they could look at quickly.
What could be considered to be a nightmare, perhaps, is suddenly feeling like 'uh oh, is this going to be the new normal. Will I have to keep doing this all the time now, or else they think I'm not getting any work done?'
Re: Grief and the AI split
#234Author doesn't care about their blog writing as craft, either (it's been fed through an LLM.)
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 the split. Many of us are mourning, you are not.
Maybe the stages of grief are not aligned yet. Or maybe it's as your post says there are two types of people.
Re: Grief and the AI split
#235[deleted]
Re: Grief and the AI split
#236Every little minor dispute can be split into some arbitrary dichotomy which is vaguely defensible. Not interesting. Twelve years ago I would have the bright idea of why not make a little, just a tiny little (what I would call now) preprocessor for Java which does the same thing in less characters and is clearer. Everyone would love it. Of course no one loved it. Well, I never implemented it. Because I got some sense:…
Now about the grief angle. This is AI Inevitability Soothsaying.[1]
It’s all just a backdrop for hammering home the same inevitabilism: GenAI, GenAI, GenAI. Just slap on whatever excuse to hammer this over, and over, and over. Grief, self-identity, some other pseudo-humanistic angle.
Now is the time that programmers talk about their feelings. Give me a break.
Because the AI hype machine isn’t content with just eventually taking your job or your craft. It can’t just quietly get exponentially better until it sweeps your legs effortlessly. No, because there’s also a market out there, and a hype needs to be built. So now you need to see it all day in your tech news aggregator. Just push all the interesting stuff out. Replace with autopilot.
No, really. Even if AI worked perfectly right now you would still need to have a constant churn of content about how to babysit this thing that speaks English already and is more capable than you. I guess it’s kind of paradoxical.
Re: Grief and the AI split
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, theres the pace of advancement of the models. Many people formed their opinions last year, and the landscape has changed a lot. People have been saying this every year for the last 3 years. It hasn't been true before, and it isn't true now. The models haven't actually gotten smarter, they still don't actually understand a thing, and they still routinely make basic syntax and logic errors. Yes, even (insert yo…
Maybe I'm solving different problems to you, but I don't think I've seen a single "idiot moment" from Claude Code this entire week. I've had to massage things to get them more aligned with how I want things, but I don't recall any basic syntax or logic errors.
I saw a few (Claude Sonnet 4.6), easily fixed. The biggest difference I’ve noticed is that when you say it has screwed up it much less likely to go down a hallucination path and can be dragged back.
Having said that, I’ve changed the way I work too: more focused chunks of work with tight descriptions and sample data and it’s like having a 2nd brain.
Re: Grief and the AI split
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way Claude can help improve your code cleanliness is if you write poor code? Code coverage means nothing if you didn't carefully check every test? "and if everything was tested" do you know what code coverage is? not gonna engage the trolling
> The only way Claude can help improve your code cleanliness is if you write poor code? No? You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer? > Code coverage means nothing if you didn't carefully check every test? "and if everything was tested" do you know what code coverage is? Do you know? Code coverage only tells what amount of the code gets *touched* by the tests. To achieve code coverage…
> You assert that it writes better code than the average software developer?
Absolutely. It contains a lot, if not majority, of all the code available at our hands right now and can reason, whatever it means for LLMs to reason anyway, about it. It absolutely demolishes average software developer and it’s not even close.
> To achieve code coverage it's enough to CALL the code, it doesn't tell you anything about the correctness of the tests: they could all end with a return true, and a code coverage tool would be perfectly happy.
> So, yes, if you don't carefully check the test suite that the agent writes, it might well be worthless (or simply much less useful than you assume it to be, more realistically).
That’s like saying that if you don’t check every line your coworker writes it becomes worthless.
Re: Grief and the AI split
#239There's two kinds of developers. The first one would never become a manager because they like coding too much. The other one would become a manager at the first opportunity. It is obviously the second group that is benefiting from AI the most (because not everybody can be a manager).
Re: Grief and the AI split
#240The divide is a matter of perspective. I'm a 23+ year dev; among the highest level ICs in my org. It's still craft, its just that the craft is different. I don't write *.ts, *.cs files anymore; I write *.md files that other devs are using, that we're using as guardrails, that ensures that we minimize the slop while increasing speed and basically lift every developers level up by several notches. I went from building…
> I write *.md files that other devs are using, that we're using as guardrails, that ensures that we minimize the slop while increasing speed and basically lift every developers level up by several notches.
> > among the highest level ICs in my org.
Checks out. Real straight shooter with upper management written all over him.