61–70 of 81 posts
Is this a psyop to check how HN readers will react to this insanity ? This could be a simple script. It should be a simple script. Please update us when this fails :)
I am going to open a Montessori school in India with my wife.
RemindMe! 3 months from now. Willing to put down a little bit of my money that this is going to blow up in their faces in the near future. I'm not super technical at all, but I don't understand why a team that does 1-3 deploys a week is not fully automating with "proper" CI.
They don't either apparently
Is this not a bash script, but run through a "maybe it won't work this time" randomizer? Sometimes I feel like I live on another planet. Wouldn't you at least get Claude to write the bash script, confirm it works how you like, then run that? Why get an LLM to guess how to do it each and every time? At least they are still manually approving, which the title made sound like something they'd move on from.
We're moving fast from "we do this with AI because it's useful" to "we do this with AI because it's cool despite the fact that it's slower, more expensive, and non-deterministic" It's like the "we made over our product in order to use technology X because it's cool and modern" that we've seen multiple times with node, go, rust, k8s, blockchain, .
Counterpoint: temperature = 0 /s
On a more serious note: I personally only found LLMs really interesting to double check my code if there might be something I overlooked in the general implementation (a different approach or so), never really for it to write code directly for me. I feel like this is just becoming less and less common nowadays and it kinda makes me worry for the quality of code that was already questionable at times...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you assuming a bit much here? They have implemented CI/CD; their Claude script triggers the git branch part of the release flow, which is what in turn triggers the CI/CD pipeline—a completely normal thing to do, even in established teams (save for the Claude part). The guy automated the toil away using AI. Not that I would feel confident automating away that part in particular, but it does neither speak badly…
Because there is more toil in writing a blog post about how you use AI to do a release, than there is in writing a script that makes the AI and the blog post unnecessary. But then you wouldn't have something about using AI to blog about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there is more toil in writing a blog post about how you use AI to do a release, than there is in writing a script that makes the AI and the blog post unnecessary. But then you wouldn't have something about using AI to blog about.
That’s an entirely different issue: people maintain a blog to improve their hireability, and that entails blogging about things that may not always be brilliant insights. It’s not this person's fault that that’s the state of tech hiring however. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Chances are, if you’re reading low-effort blog posts that are consistently in certain knowledge domains, they’re intending to apply for CEUs at renewal time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring the Claude AI release, why does releasing 1 - 3 per week implies low confidence and quality issues?
Because they should be spending one day writing scripts and github actions for their CI/CD system before pushing out new code by hand or AI assistance several times a week. Releasing 1 - 3 times a week means it's 1 - 3 times more important to have a deterministic release process than if you release 1 time a week.
I still don't understand why 1 - 3 releases per week implies low confidence and quality issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did something similar in my hobby project - the agent was promoted, among the other things, to copy a signature from a build artifact into a json file. It worked fine until it didn’t - one day Claude 4 Sonnet randomly flipped one letter in the signature to something else. It wasn’t the end of the world, I catched the error because I always manually test if the release worked, but it shows that AI tools should not b…
> It’s slow, inefficient and error prone. And really expensive, which is why AI companies want you to do that. > Just ask the AI to help you write a proper workflow with code. This.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are talking about a Gen AI startup that has a handful of employees here. They have little excuse not to implement CI/CD, unless they lack confidence in their product's quality.
Ignoring the Claude AI release, why does releasing 1 - 3 per week implies low confidence and quality issues?
Sans security patches, why are your features not sized to roughly a sprint? What do you manage to prepare, build and validate in a day or two? To me release cadence less than every few weeks screams "whatever landed in master is good to go" and is a sign of mis-/un-managed development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s an entirely different issue: people maintain a blog to improve their hireability, and that entails blogging about things that may not always be brilliant insights. It’s not this person's fault that that’s the state of tech hiring however. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Blogging is actually a good way for professionals to earn CEUs to maintain certifications. Chances are, if you’re reading low-effort blog posts that are consistently in certain knowledge domains, they’re intending to apply for CEUs at renewal time.
Update - Packages is experiencing degraded performance. We are continuing to investigate. May 26, 2025 - 08:39 UTC
Update - Copilot is experiencing degraded performance. We are continuing to investigate. May 26, 2025 - 08:26 UTC
Update - Actions is experiencing degraded performance. We are continuing to investigate. May 26, 2025 - 08:25 UTC
Update - We are continuing to investigate degraded performance. May 26, 2025 - 07:53 UTC
Update - Issues is experiencing degraded performance. We are continuing to investigate. May 26, 2025 - 07:35 UTC
Investigating - We are investigating reports of degraded performance for API Requests and Git Operations May 26, 2025 - 07:21 UTC
Is this not a bash script, but run through a "maybe it won't work this time" randomizer? Sometimes I feel like I live on another planet. Wouldn't you at least get Claude to write the bash script, confirm it works how you like, then run that? Why get an LLM to guess how to do it each and every time? At least they are still manually approving, which the title made sound like something they'd move on from.