Live data from Hacker News

What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

margaretstorey.com

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, stay with me here, the LLMs were trained on how we, statistically, write.

There are typical LLM voices and styles, just like human writers have differentiated voices and styles. And some common elements of the typical LLM style are distinct from humans I've previously read.

[flagged]

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, stay with me here, the LLMs were trained on how we, statistically, write.

There are typical LLM voices and styles, just like human writers have differentiated voices and styles. And some common elements of the typical LLM style are distinct from humans I've previously read.

I recognize this. It's also the case that I suspect that I've read more about how annoying suspected LLM output is to read than I have read LLM output. The slop is, to me, an incredibly unwelcome contribution of humans that don't enjoy the craft but complaining about it is equally stuck in and further exacerbating the froth rather than distilling down to the substance. That is it keeps the focus on the surface rather than on what the core content is and whether it has value.

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#33
I think the antidote is ownership. Every part of a company or product needs some person or small group that owns it, understands it, and feels ownership over its long-term health. They review or decide what level of review changes to it can take.

So much of what makes high-functioning teams work is a sense of ownership and stewardship, and what makes low-functioning teams break is a lack thereof. Someone with pride, drive, and a high standard feeling responsible for a particular area or thing.

In the past, that ownership could be individual or collective, but with AI and a lot more lane-crossing, ownership should tend toward smaller groups (or individuals).

A developer can design, but a designer needs to review it. A designer can code, but the owner of the code must review it.

This might feel like gatekeeping, but it's the only way.

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Could you give some specific examples?

My experience moving between startup/SME/corp: Smaller teams have more agency to move and usually team members with broader responsibility and understanding of the systems. Also possibly closer to stakeholders, so are already involved in specification creation and know where automation can add value. Add an AI agent and they can pick and choose where they can be most effective at a system level. Bigger teams have cle…

Ah, I feel what you're saying. Yea that makes total sense.

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#35

Unfortunately I think Cognitive Debt is the cry of the software craftsperson who thought they were an Engineer. Upon working with the agent subcontractor, the agent factory, the agent part vendor, they approached it as a craft; they found themselves wanting to walk through the offices of the subcontractor reviewing screens, inspect pieces at the factory, and get the internal design for the parts they ordered. It's na…

Because waterfall software engineering has been so successful, right? ;-)

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#36

Unfortunately I think Cognitive Debt is the cry of the software craftsperson who thought they were an Engineer. Upon working with the agent subcontractor, the agent factory, the agent part vendor, they approached it as a craft; they found themselves wanting to walk through the offices of the subcontractor reviewing screens, inspect pieces at the factory, and get the internal design for the parts they ordered. It's na…

Because waterfall software engineering has been so successful, right? ;-)

Because agile has been so successful, right? ;)

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#37
post #17

Cognitive Debt has existed much earlier before LLMs became mainstream. Technical people got good at their jobs and then was promoted to management. After time they lost their technical abilities but if they are a good manager they kept up to date with the technological landscape and used their engineering thinking to ensure that the people below them worked to their optimum efficiency to achieve the companies goals.…

>Many engineers are horrible at this and have no desires or ability to become a manager. This is why they went to engineering in the first place.

Bingo. If I wanted to spend my life managing incompetent sycophants, I would've studied for an MBA to try to rise the ranks at McKinsey.

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#38
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because waterfall software engineering has been so successful, right? ;-)

Because agile has been so successful, right? ;)

Agile fails when folks don't adjust and tailor the process to the specific needs of their team or organization but instead try to cargo cult it.

Re: What I'm Hearing About Cognitive Debt (So Far)

#39

Its more and more clear to me that AI is a force multiplier for small teams and hobby workflows, but seems to have diminishing returns for larger teams.

How so? Could you give some specific examples?

Small teams prioritize expertise and agency.

Large teams prioritize service resilience and depth of coverage.

Post reply on HN