Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 510 posts

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#391

Post by kuekacang »

philip1209 wrote: post #249

I think the deeper need is a "self-review" flow. People push AI-reviewed code like they wrote it. In the past, "wrote it" implies "reviewed it." With AI, that's no longer true. I advocate for GitHub and other code review systems to add a "Require self-review" option, where people must attest that they reviewed and approved their own code. This change might seem symbolic, but it clearly sets workflows and expectations…

I've been lucky to discover git relatively late and sublime merge relatively soon. It seems like separating the concern of editing and reviewing code is making me consider each more as separate thing.

It also makes me more comfortable figuring out how a project's pull acceptance are like (maybe due to how fast local ui is compared to web-based git). On the other hand, I can only run some basic git cli commands and can't quickly comprehend raw text-based diff, especially when encountering some linux patches from time to time.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#394

Post by groundzeros2015 »

cobolcomesback wrote: post #11

This “mandatory meeting” is just the usual weekly company-wide meeting where recent operational issues are discussed. There was a big operational issue last week, so of course this week will have more attendance and discussion. This meeting happens literally every week, and has for years. Feels like the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

It’s always sobering to see a news story about something you have insider perspective on.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#395

Post by billbrown »

philip1209 wrote: post #249

I think the deeper need is a "self-review" flow. People push AI-reviewed code like they wrote it. In the past, "wrote it" implies "reviewed it." With AI, that's no longer true. I advocate for GitHub and other code review systems to add a "Require self-review" option, where people must attest that they reviewed and approved their own code. This change might seem symbolic, but it clearly sets workflows and expectations…

Yes, underthinking is rampant. Glancing at "AI" output is not reviewing code: you have to grok it (in the Heinlein sense) in order to treat it as your own.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#396

Post by 827a »

> Company that lays-off 20% of its staff every year in an attempt to "reduce inefficiency" and "remain agile in the adoption of new technologies and workflows" finds they cannot run a stable service, have more inefficiency than ever, and have also failed to establish leadership in the adoption of any new technologies or workflows. They plan to solve these problems by introducing more inefficiency (making your most expensive employees review the work of others).

We love this for Amazon, they're a very strong company making bold decisions.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#397

Post by icedchai »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #360
ansibsha wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and trusting an LLM here is not a good idea. You know it will make important mistakes. I’m not saying trusting cheap devs is a good idea either. I do think cheap devs are actually at risk here.

I am not “trusting” either - I’m validating that they meet the functional and non functional requirements just like with an LLM. I have never blindly trusted any developer when my neck was the one on the line in front of my CTO/director or customer. I didn’t blindly trust the Salesforce consultants either. I also didn’t verify every line of oSql (not a typo) they wrote.

Actually, it's SOQL. I did Salesforce crap for many years.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#398

Post by sarchertech »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #281
sarchertech wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they don’t. Please reread what I said, give it the slightest bit of thought, and re-respond if you want a response from me.

By definition, coding agents are right now the worse they will ever be and the industry as a whole by definition is the least experienced it will ever be at using then. So many people on HN are so insulted that the people who put money in our bank accounts and in some cases stock in our brokerage accounts ever cared about their bespoke clean code, GOF patterns and they never did. LLM just made it more apparent. It’s…

Wow you have completely lost the plot. It’s like you’re a bot that’s mixing up who he’s replying to.

Re: After outages, Amazon to make senior engineers sign off on AI-assisted changes

#400

Post by LPisGood »

airstrike wrote: post #303
FuckButtons wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume everyone is making 100k it only takes 20 people in a meeting for it to cost 1k.

Wasn't it Shopify who had a system for tracking how much each meeting cost based on attendees? I may be misremembering the company though

I was thinking about this in recent weeks and I think I’ve actually changed my mind on it.

It’s not really possible to measure how much it would cost to not have a meeting, and I think it’s pretty obvious that if there were no meetings ever, it would hurt a company a lot

Post reply on HN