When I see "in the year of our Lord" I immediately tune out the writer. Almost as bad as "Unreasonable Effectiveness"
Ikr. It should be “in the year 2026 of the Common Era.”
Have a Coherent AI Policy
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#52Is anyone actually at a company that is purposely trying to use a ton of tokens? It gets expensive really fast.
I've personally had people talk about token leaderboards at their work. Amazon and Meta did have ones, but I'd take with a decent grain of salt. We all know it's such an insanely gameable metric you'd be insane to actually use it...
many of these leaderboards were built internally by curious ICs and taken down by leadership (for obvious reasons).
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#53When I see "in the year of our Lord" I immediately tune out the writer. Almost as bad as "Unreasonable Effectiveness"
[deleted]
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#54Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#55> It’s Still Your Code... AI maximalists will read this section and scoff. They’re already vibe coding everything and have little to no idea what the generated code looks like. This frames the argument like a dichotomy. And to be honest, using the Social Media "vibe-coding" as a strawman risks anchoring against something that's a mirage. There are plenty of good engineers getting good results whilst accepting code-ow…
Who's name do you put down on a code commit? Yours, or the LLM? If it's yours then it is your code and you are responsible for knowing all about it. If it's the LLM then what do we even need you for?
I've worked on plenty of code where the original author is long gone. Not sure that holds water at all.
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#56> You must be able to do your job if your AI tooling disappears While I agree with the sentiment I fear this won’t last long. I already find myself, when Claude goes down for 15 minutes due to whatever, kind of throwing my hands up and taking a walk assuming it’ll be up by the time I get back. Usually it is. If it went away for good I’d be able to code, but would I want to? I’d be kind of bummed in a way. Which is od…
I'd still want to code without AI if it's permanently gone. But if it's gone for 10 minutes? Sure, I'll switch to something else.
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh oh you guys didn't realize you were guinea pigs for products that can permanently alter your mental health?
Social media? TV? Radio? Newspapers? Books? Which ones in particular this time.
hm social media maybe you could consider causes cognitive decline similar to what is theorized about over-reliance on an llm.
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's name do you put down on a code commit? Yours, or the LLM? If it's yours then it is your code and you are responsible for knowing all about it. If it's the LLM then what do we even need you for?
I've worked on plenty of code where the original author is long gone. Not sure that holds water at all.
So an LLM is an author that writes code and immediately leaves.
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes you less valuable and your job less secure because as LLMs improve, the level of knowledge/skill required goes down, thus putting more people at the level of "good enough", which is generally what companies optimize for over time with regards to hiring (least amount for good enough). > There are projects I now start without thinking twice that I never would have considered a few years ago. I'm sick of seeing…
Most people making this argument aren’t saying they were incapable of doing the project without AI, they’re saying the cost benefit equation was unfavorable because it would take too long.
[deleted]
Re: Have a Coherent AI Policy
#60> It’s Still Your Code... AI maximalists will read this section and scoff. They’re already vibe coding everything and have little to no idea what the generated code looks like. This frames the argument like a dichotomy. And to be honest, using the Social Media "vibe-coding" as a strawman risks anchoring against something that's a mirage. There are plenty of good engineers getting good results whilst accepting code-ow…
Yes. One point I don't usually see people address is that using external dependencies has much of the same properties.
Developers often depend on external libraries like things for Image processing, Numpy, etc. Do they have to "own" the code in those external libraries and review them, in the same way people sometimes insist you have to review all AI-generated code? Do developers have to be able to recreate Numpy by themselves, even if their field isn't necessarily numerical optimization etc?
Those seem like very high and unreasonable bars.