371–380 of 397 posts
I have exact MacBook and chipset that op is claiming to support.
The driver doesn't even compile without modifications.
It attach to the device, but you can't scan, associate or do anything.
Basically the whole driver is stubbed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market is losing its shit over this because people are operating on the thesis that "AI will be able to ..." rather than "AI can demonstrably do ...". At some point they're all gonna get margin called on their futurisms. It would be a lot better if, before getting excited, we ask to see experimental results. So you say you have a world-beating security tool? Show me something it can do that all the other ones can…
But then the sellers wouldn’t find the useful idiots to sell their snake oil to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dis you hire juniors just to get drafts? That seems pretty inneficient.
I'm a lawyer, so a bunch of work--factual analysis, legal research, etc.--goes into the draft that isn't just the words on the page. At the same time, the work product is meant to persuade human readers, so a lot of work goes into making the words on the page perfect. (Perhaps past the point of diminishing returns, but companies are willing to pay for that incremental edge when the stakes are high.) Programming is di…
But the whole goal of software engineering is not about getting the recipe to the machine. That’s quite easy. It’s about writing the correct recipe so that the output is what’s expected. It’s also about communicating the recipe to fellow developers (sharing knowledge).
But we are not developing recipe that much today. Instead we’ve built enough abstractions that we’re developing recipes of recipes. There’s a lot of indirection between what our recipe says and the final product. While we can be more creative, the failure mode has also increased. But the cost of physically writing a recipe has gone down a lot.
So what matters today is having a good understanding of the tower of abstractions, at least the part that is useful for a project. But you have to be on hand with it to discern the links between each layer and each concept. Because each little one matters. Or you delegate and choose to trust someone else.
Trusting AI is trusting that it can maintain such consistent models so that it produces the expected output. And we all know that they don’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlikely. The future will be some people will do this, but honestly I think it will largely be people who were already tinkering with building things, whether full on software development or not My mom and dad, my brother who drives a dump truck in a limestone quarry, my sister-in-law, none of them work in tech or consider themselves technical in any way. They are never, ever going to write their own software and wil…
They won't think about it in terms of building software, just like many house buyers don't think in terms of building houses, even though somebody has effectively built a house just for them. They'll just ask their bank to help them fill out a family income form based on last year's earnings. They'll get the numbers back, without thinking about the Python script that used Pandas and some web APIs to generate those nu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair if you open up driver source code from the vendors themselves, it's often the same hell with magic numbers and lack of checks because "we know what the hardware will return". But you're right on the main point: AI writes C like a very confident junior who skipped memory safety lectures - it copies the style, but not the discipline. It works as long as you're on the "happy path", but debugging a kernel pani…
I was personally surprised when the agent debugged kernel panics caused by its own code (many times by now). It just iterates from the stack traces and crash dumps. The nice part is that, when you do see that the code smells — you ask the agent to rework it, focusing on specific problems. This is just code, and you don't need to dance around, hoping that AI will spill some "magic" at you.
I think that is the crux of the problem. How do you know code smell if you don't write it, and you don't read it? I'm pretty confident the spdx header isn't correct even.
Had an experience like this recently. QEMU stopped compiling for old versions of MacOS (pre-13) w/M1 arch, due to it requiring newer SDKs which don't support older MacOS versions. I put Sonnet 4.6 on the case, and it wrote a small patch, compiled and installed it in a matter of minutes, without giving it any instructions other than to look at errors and apply a fix. I definitely would have just given up without the A…
Mind sharing the prompt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know some proponents have AGI as their target, but to me it seems to be unrelated to the steadily increasing effectiveness of using LLMs to write computer code. I think of it as just another leap in human-computer interface for programming, and a welcome one at that.
If you imagine it just keeps improving, the end point would be some sort of AGI though. Logically, once you have something better at making software than humans, you can ask it to make a better AI than we were able to make.
We don’t need anything close to AGI to render the job “software engineer” as we know it today completely obsolete. Ever hear of a lorimer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't understand your reply. What exactly are you disagreeing with?
That businesses will eventually care about quality. As proven by offshoring, it is a race to the bottom, as long as software kind of works.