411–420 of 510 posts
The seniors will now be directly responsible for all the AI slop that goes in. But how can they possibly properly review reams of code to a sufficient degree they can personally vouch for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The business leaders do not care about this yet. I think a lot of people think we already have more Seniors than we will need in the next 5-10 years. Also - the definition of Senior will change, and a lot of current Seniors will not transition, while plenty of Juniors that put in a lot of time using code agents will transition.
>while plenty of Juniors that put in a lot of time using code agents will transition. But will they? I'm not at all convinced that babysitting an AI churning out volumes of code you don't understand will help you acquire the knowledge to understand and debug it.
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…
Heck, doing a self review when you wrote the code catches stuff like forgetting debug prints.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Create conflicting metrics for performance, push credit up and responsibility down, punish everyone below you for not meeting the double standards This resonates with my experience. The only thing you forgot is that you can also use the 12^H^H 14 leadership principles to argue whatever you want (and then the opposite of what you argued last month, still using the same leadership principles).
Got a project finished early? Well, you didn't insist on the highest standards. Made sure things were held to a high standard? Well, you weren't biased for action. Were you a knowledge source for the entire team? Well, you weren't learning and being curious. Did you ask a lot of questions to learn everything? Well, then you weren't "are right a lot". Did you think big and come up with an architecture that saved Amazo…
1. Choose from a set of challenge types (e.g. meeting a deadline, reliability)
2. Choose whether the challenge was "met" or "failed".
3. Choose whether you want to make the person look good or bad, by following/ignoring a principle.
4. Results: A list of relevant principles with short rationalizations.
I'm almost tempted to try, except perhaps I should treasure my ignorance.
If a tool like that gets popular enough that most employees are using it for office-politics, it might even start to deflate the whole Leadership Principles thing.
Also while this is happening most developers are getting constantly hammered by operational issues and critical security tasks because 1) the legacy toolchain imports 6 different language package ecosystems and 2)no one ever pays down tech debt in legacy code until its a high severity ticket count in a KPI dashboard visible to the senior management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Are you completely missing the point of the submission no, and that's what people are noting: the headline deliberately tries to blow this up into a big deal. When did you last see the HN post about Amazon's mandatory meeting to discuss a human-caused outage, or a post mortem? It's not because they don't happen...
> the headline deliberately tries to blow this up into a big deal I do not understand how “company that runs half the internet has had major recent outages and now explicitly names lax/non-existent LLM usage guidelines as a major reason” can possibly not be a big deal in the midst of an industry-wide hype wave over how the world’s biggest companies now run agent teams shipping 150 pull requests an hour. The chain of…
Maybe your CoT-level reasoning isn’t so robust.