691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I like how they say they don't vibe in this comment, and then that they don't read the code anymore in just the previous comment in their comment history.
> We still require a code review for any change and it's becoming a bottleneck - for sure
Company I just left is reportedly now using Claude to analyse the metadata generated from the company MDM that tracks actual laptop use, and then pulling people up if they're not working "enough". They're also reportedly now giving staff AI-related "homework" in an attempt to force staff to use AI more.
Maybe this is what will turn software engineering into an Engineering field. Right know, prompters are setting up whole company infrastructure. I personally know one. He migrated the companies database to a newer Postgres version. He was successful in the end, but I was gnawing my teeth when he described every step of the process. It sounded like "And then, I poured gasoline on the servers while smoking a cigarette.…
You can see the same approach is taken by Trump and other people.
“You have TDS!! He is actually doing good. He doesn’t follow rules because the system is rigged etc.”
These arguments border on religion because it is predicated on you believing their ignorant point of view in the first place.
Engineering and science is built on rigor and empirical evidence, it is not built by scammers/businessman/ignorant-people/politicians because that is just not how it works
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Or he's just giving a sane take, one that most people in the Bay Area have by now. Lots of tech companies are doing just fine with purely AI written code at this point. Saying that the quality is getting worse in some immeasurable way (while incidents remain the same) is literally unfalsifiable.
What we do see publicly is OSS projects overrun with poor submissions, for example.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about companies and people outsourcing their decision making and thinking to AI and not really about using AI itself. I don't think using AI to write code is AI psychosis or bad at all, but if you just prompt the AI and believe what it tell you then you have AI psychosis. You see this a lot with financial people and VC on twitter. They literally post screenshots of ChatGPT as their thinki…
If you think you can let AI write code without double checking you have AI psychosis. If you prefer reviewing AI-written code over writing it yourself, you just have odd preferences from my perspective (but not psychosis).
I would say writing it myself is more enjoyable (in some cases). But I quite understand that I am not paid to enjoy myself. I'd say it's quicker getting AI to do it and reviewing. I believe the outcome is no worse on average. So yes, that's my chosen approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also at a FAANG here. Surprised you don't manage to use $300 in a whole day. It's almost trivial to productively use that much in under an hour. Leadership is not being dumb, at least on this topic. If your token usage is that low, you just aren't using AI that much (even if you think you are.)
If you are burning through $2400 a day, you’re just wasting tokens on idiotic tasks.
The stock market keeps going up in the face of the indefinite closure of Hormuz. We're investing in datacenters at a scale that only makes sense if AI capabilities continue to advance to the point where they surpass most humans at most white collar tasks, if not reach superintelligence.
And what are the possible outcomes?
- Bust. We've come away with a useful tool but the hundreds of billions of capital expenditure were thrown away on a pipe dream.
- Success! We're the dog that's caught the car. Then what? Currently the political debate is, to caricature only slightly, between "oh no the datacenters will use more water than golf courses" and "lol what are you going to do, regulate matrix multiplication?". How the hell are we going to cope with introducing a new intelligent species?
Either way, it sure seems like we're collectively operating more in the interests of the future AI than in the interests of humanity. What is this, if not a sort of psychosis?
Recently I had a request come through to allow finance analysts to vibe code their apps. During a discussion one of the finance managers let the cat out of the bag. Turns out our CFO had met fellow CFOs at a get together. They talked about how each of them were using AI. Our CFO was lagging behind and felt that we need to "accelerate" our usage of AI. He wants to push it just because he lost a bragging contest.