71–80 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.
It will help if your wall of text cost less tokens than theirs, they will run out before you do if you have the same company quota per person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like one potential interpretation of his behavior is that he values his own time more than your time. I wonder if that's occurred to him.
AI and companies reward sociopathic behavior. When he eventually complains to his boss that his work isn't being merged and it's been done for days/weeks/months that will filter up and look bad on the people holding him up.
More and more I'm generating AI emails, often to people outside the company and often to do with technical issues / integrations we have / APIs. So far I don't think the people I'm emailing are really using AI as human responses are, well, lacking. What would be great is new email conventions for different communication pathways. Human -> Human (think we have this sorted) AI -> Human AI -> AI If you are doing AI -> H…
tries to pass slop, complains about quality of replies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fight fire with fire. Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. If there are excessive defects, ask them in standup if they actually reviewed the PR themselves before sending it. If there aren’t maybe they are on to something. I think like in law, the human submitting the work is responsible for its quality, not the AI.
> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.
If they can't explain their own code then it is by default a bad pull request.
At the end of the day, everyone's time is being wasted on tokens and on the increasing cognitive complexity of AI generated code.
This exactly reflects my feelings lately. I have a specific coworker who has gone somewhat overboard - every single code review, answer to any question on email or Teams, every new story, even their personal opinions during a design or ideas meeting, are all direct AI output with no massaging or human touch or review. They're working on planning out an upcoming project, and I just get verbose and long documents to re…
Instinctively I think the move is to ignore it. I guess that would look different in different contexts. Obviously you have to communicate with your coworkers. But I think the solution has to essential be: "Im not going to read that."
Yes, "not actually doing his job". If he's sending you un-reviewed, un-filtered, untouched AI output, that's not doing his job.
Maybe this is why generative art never really took off. That said, roguelikes are awesome. So there is definitely a place for simulated effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why leave comments intended for your human colleague when they will only forward them to the bot? why not speak directly to the bot yourself instead? then you can drop pretenses and get to the point I find this to be a new variant of the old behavior where a colleague comments on a typo in a PR, and the team later moans about laborious back and forth for small nitpicks, instead of simply editing the typo right there…
let's take the two stories to management: "I'm writing tons of code, and the process is stumbling where the guy whose job it is to review code isn't reviewing it." "I'm not reviewing code." Sometimes I wonder: how does someone go and think so much about their coworkers, and never once think about how they themselves look? Even if I sympathize with the people complaining about their poorly chosen GitHub-based workflow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fight fire with fire. Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. If there are excessive defects, ask them in standup if they actually reviewed the PR themselves before sending it. If there aren’t maybe they are on to something. I think like in law, the human submitting the work is responsible for its quality, not the AI.
> Ask Fable to conduct an adversarial /ultareview of their PR and send the same wall of text back to them. This won't help. Your wall of text will just get fed right back into the LLM.