Prompts are not code: if you understand none of the generated code, every argument about the program is a sophisticated version of “I told it to make no mistakes”.
1 Boost
0 Likes
They're even slopping the requirements in one (large customer 😧) project I've until recently been assigned to.
And bragging about it.
So much for "this will help us concentrate on the big picture".
Gain in measured velocity, by the way, AFAICT: zero.
(At this point, I'm more flabbergasted than complaining! Such widespread complying-in-advance wasn't on my crystal ball.)
@quincy we did an experiment with letting someone slop an issue. We first estimated the time we’d need when doing it ourselves. To be fair we used the upper limit.
The expectation was that it would go faster.
It was slower.
EDIT: and horrifyingly that did not lead to people saying “we tried, it failed, let’s not do that anymore”.
(and same here about the complying ☹)
@ArneBab I wonder when this will start to register ... the delusion might be widespread, but could they please look at those darned KPI for *once*!
@quincy I think it’s because people always find a way to justify continued usage. It’s last month’ tech (that argument didn’t change for the past two years), it’s prompted wrong, the code isn’t clean enough, …
And only the arguments for continued usage get that leeway.
Did you see my quick re-evaluation of the experiment by metr? They claimed that they must have missed part of the speed gains, but did not take into account that repeat participants may have gotten worse:
https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117520574197499133
Gambling, sunken costs (also commitment to the issue - the worst pushers of this have staked their whole professional personas and more on this!)
So it's always something else at fault ...
@quincy How can we help people get out of that again after they are invested deeply?
I don't know. As long as the supply is there, there's little chance because of the manipulative nature of the game and of the technology itself, that the pushers will listen to detractors.
Maybe it has to burn itself out?
What really angers me (and makes me anxious, I'm not afraid to admit, even though pushers use it as a taunt!) is the extent to which it's gotten hegemonial.
1/2
I think it does help to inspire confidence in those who don't actually enjoy this "future" but feel too alone to speak out.
To unite, in the near future, and create a counterweight.
2/2
Did this recently in a meeting, explained why I don't "use the AI" and don't need it and think it's a bad idea and it doesn't do what they think it does, and sucks all the fun out of the job for me ... and got positive feedback at least from 2-3 others, including one who told me in private "I feel the same".
So at least not everyone is truly on board in the same way even where king slop rules
(On the other hand, my attempts to get support for installing a Betriebsrat failed, 🤷)
@quincy Did you already see my article on my wish for the EU?
https://www.draketo.de/software/curb-ai-impact
Regardless of what they decide to spend on AI, spend at least 1% of that on improving programming for humans. Examples: Improve programming tooling, nurture template libraries, extend and integrate documentation, support maintainers, foster standardized interfaces, champion responsiveness, de-bloat stacks.
My expectation is that those 1% would actually bring more benefit than the AI spending.
Excellent idea!
Though I'd say: spend at least as much there. Parity would only be fair, level the playing field ... and then let them haggle it down and look daft in the process (and "everyone" be surprised when it *still* pays off at only 1% of all that money)
@quincy I’d also like to see the same amount spent.
I now changed the line from "VC funding" to "overall funding", to make it clear that it’s not just the money given by self-identified venture capitalists.
1% of the funding of US-based AI would already be ten billion per year. That’s about 13x the yearly revenue of JetBrains.
I now added a footnote to that: "Ideally match funding: for every EU Euro spent for AI, spend at least one on AI independent software."
@quincy I think we’d already be hard pressed spending 13 billion on non-AI free software, because there just aren’t enough unbound people who can take that up. That’s more than a third of the revenue of SAP.
@ArneBab
My (soon to be be ex-, unless the bubble bursts this week *and* the machine idols go 404) coworkers no longer understand this.
They've fallen in lockstep behind that Claude thing.
The pipeline from "I'm just letting it make changes" to "we no longer want to understand the code or the process" was quick.
(This is why I'm so against even assigning this tech even the smallest role in a project. It's poison.)