471–480 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My coworker said he does that too. Also have coworkers using AI to run git commands. Nothing fancy either- just pull, push, merge etc
Do you mean they tell an LLM "push this code", or that the LLM runs the commands as part of a larger agentic workflow. The former is crazy but the latter makes sense.
(Yes I forgot, they have the agent resolve git conflicts!)
According to [1], there are about 5500 people in Engineering at Uber. Using $1250 as the mid-point of the $ spend range, that comes to about $6.8 Million in engineering AI spend, ballpark, with the range being $2.75 Million - $12 Million. The article lists $3.4 Billion as the R&D spend. The AI spend does not appear to be a significant chunk of R&D spending (0.3% in 4 months or 1% annualized). If they didn't plan for…
That would be per month. Per year it would be $81.6M.
A small fraction compared to the R&D budget but still a huge amount of cash to spend on something with (apparently) very little impact on the whole business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I take the prompts to the AI so the manager doesn't have to! I have prompting skills!! This is honestly the mindset of the people on here who proudly proclaim that they haven't written a line of code in six months and are excited about what programming is "evolving" into. Naturally, _their_ AI skills aren't something that an "idea guy" can use to build a product without looping in a developer, so _his_ job is safe…
do you... honestly not believe that system design is real???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a lot. Its a lot for being able to generate that many tokens. And i'm not talking about some genies 10x developer who is working with multiply git worktrees on x tasks in parallel in high quality
No, it's really not a lot at all, especially if you've got a mandate to maximize your AI usage, which many engineering orgs have right now. I burned $216 USD using Claude Code in March just doing some casual development on the side and certainly not as a part of any professional workplace mandate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Missing here: some organizations were rewarding high token usage as productivity without critical evaluation. People were afraid to be in the bottom because outcomes weren't being measured. It is a giant Goodhart's law lesson
What!? Companies rewarding high token usage? That's inane, insane, and small brained. Who in their right mind equivocates spending more money to bring more productive. I'll just set up some burn jobs to kill tokens unnecessarily and then everyone else will too and the company will go bankrupt in 10 days. It seems inconceivable for a company to set up a "who can spend the most of our money" leaderboard for any other c…
What!? Companies rewarding high token usage? That's inane, insane, and small brained. Who in their right mind equivocates spending more money to bring more productive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn’t mind when typesetting was automated. Or when compilers were invented. Why is this different?
Do typesetters or compilers write the code for you? Or are you perhaps using a disingenuous analogy?
The high level language code is a prompt for the compiler. Consider that there is parsable C code whose behavior is not even defined. There are still bugs in compilers today, where the code produced is not what you intended. And further, modern compilers do lots of work to optimize performance. You usually don’t even look at the resulting code, you just gratefully accept the rewrite for the extra oomph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn’t mind when typesetting was automated. Or when compilers were invented. Why is this different?
Because he's paid to deliver code that works. Letting an AI agent do everything would be fine if it didn't make any mistakes, but that's far from reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn’t mind when typesetting was automated. Or when compilers were invented. Why is this different?
Do typesetters inexplicably change the meaning of the book or document being typeset? Do compilers alter the behavior intended by the programmer, sometimes in ways that are not immediately obvious? Did the invention of typesetters lead to investments so massive, that the investors had to herald the end of handwriting (no equivalent analogy for compilers)?
On typesetters and investment: the WYSIWYG word processor is on almost every home and office desk in the world.