251–260 of 605 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should periodically ask Claude to review random parts of code to pump your metrics.
Has the net benefit that it points out things that are actually wrong and overlooked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. And if your team is doing this you're not "advanced." Lots of people are outing themselves these days about the complexity of their jobs, or lack thereof. Which is great! But it's not a +1 for AI, it's a -1 for them.
I beginning to think most "advanced" programmers are just poor communicators. It really comes mostly down to being able to concisely and eloquently define what you want done. It also is important to understand what the default tendencies and biases of the model are so you know where to lean in a little. Occasionally you need to provide reference material. The capabilities have grown dramatically in the last 6 months.…
We had a method for this before LLMs; it was called "Haskell".
> In many advanced software teams, developers no longer write the code; they type in what they want, and AI systems generate the code for them. What a wild and speculative claim. Is there any source for this information?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's kind of the first time in my life that I've been actively hoping for a technology to out right not deliver on its promise. Same here, and I think it's because I feel like a craftsman. I thoroughly enjoy the process of thinking deeply about what I will build, breaking down the work into related chunks, and of course writing the code itself. It's like magic when it all comes together. Sometimes I can't even beli…
So write code. Maybe post renaissance many artists no longer had patrons, but nothing was stopping them from painting. If your industry truely is going in the direction where there's no paid work for you to code (which is unlikely in my opinion), nobody is stopping you. It's easier than ever, you have decades of personal computing at your fingertips. Most people with a thing they love do it as a hobby, not a job. May…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s why when folks say that AI has made them 10x more productive, I ask if they did 10 years worth of work in the last year. What makes you think one year is the right timeframe? Yet you seem to be so wildly confident in the strength of what you think your question will reveal… in spite of the fact that the guy gave you an example. It wasn’t that he didn’t provide it, it was that you didn’t want to hear it.
It’s a general question I ask of everyone who claims they are 10x more productive. Year/month/day/hour doesn’t matter. Did you do 10 days of work yesterday? 10 weeks of work last week? It is actually a very forgiving metric over a year because it is measuring only your own productivity relative to your personal trend. That includes vacation time and sick time, so the year smooths over all the variation. Maybe he did…
Not only that, I think you're misrepresenting his claim:
> I suspect I’m likely 5-10x more productive, though it depends exactly what I’m working on
1) He didn't say 10-100x
2) He said it depended on the work he was doing
Those seem reasonable enough that I can take his experience at face value.
This isn't about you pressure testing his claim, this is about you just being unwilling to believe his experience because it doesn't fit the narrative you've already got in your head.
The post script was pretty sobering. It's kind of the first time in my life that I've been actively hoping for a technology to out right not deliver on its promise. This is a pretty depressing place to be, because most emerging technologies provide us with exciting new possibilities whereas this technology seems only exciting for management stressed about payroll. It's true that the technology currently works as an e…
Regarding that PS: > This strikes me as paradoxical given my sense that one of AI’s main impacts will be to increase productivity and thus eliminate jobs. The allegation that an "Increase of productivity will reduce jobs" has been proven false by history over and over again it's so well known it has a name, "Jevons Paradox" or "Jevons Effect"[0]. > In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) occurs whe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true for me. I type in what I want and then the AI system (compiler) generates the code. Doesn't everyone work that way?
I understand what you're getting at, but compilers are deterministic. AI isn't just another tool, or just a higher level of program specification.
The post script was pretty sobering. It's kind of the first time in my life that I've been actively hoping for a technology to out right not deliver on its promise. This is a pretty depressing place to be, because most emerging technologies provide us with exciting new possibilities whereas this technology seems only exciting for management stressed about payroll. It's true that the technology currently works as an e…
With the internet, and especially with the internet being accessible by anyone anywhere in the world in the late 2000s and early 2010s globally, that growth was more obvious to me. I don't see where this occurs with AI. I don't see room for "growth", I see room for cutting. We were already connected before, globalization seems to have peaked in that sense.
One thing I don't hear people talking about very is about how AI is going to make money in any other way other than cutting employment. With the internet, and especially with the internet being accessible by anyone anywhere in the world in the late 2000s and early 2010s globally, that growth was more obvious to me. I don't see where this occurs with AI. I don't see room for "growth", I see room for cutting. We were a…