4 ms·

"I don't know Claude did that" isn't a bad thing in and of itself... If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verif

"I don't know Claude did that" isn't a bad thing in and of itself... If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value than someone who cares about reading every line of code.

torben-friis 1y ago
Any situation where you’re submitting under your signature code to production without knowing what it does should be at the very least cause for a talk. I’m kinda shocked that this even has to be said.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ponector 1y ago
If you don't understand you code how you can be sure it's correct? You actually are pushing it into your colleagues who will verify and fix the code later.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Testing. The only thing that changed with AI is that the narrative went from "you can't always know perfectly what every part of the program does" to "don't even try".
  - ponector 1y ago
    Sad reality is test engineers headcount over last years was cut even more than developers. Most companies see testing as obstacle and unnecessary costs and has no will to invest into testing.
  - 9dev 1y ago
    But the LLM writes the tests too. Probably even made some private methods public so it can test them, because you asked it to write a comprehensive test suite. It’s a beautiful self-jerk circle of shitty code based on wrong assumptions proven by correct tests testing shitty code based on wrong assumptions…
    - johntash 1y ago
      Or the wonderful loop of "These test steps are still failing, let's try something simpler and remove the failing tests. Great! The tests are passing now!"
- rafaelero 1y ago
  To be fair, even if you understand it that's doesn't mean it will work well.
oblio 1y ago
You, sir, have "executive" written all over you.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  Savage
AndrewDucker 1y ago
If you "don't know" then how could you have "easily verified it was correct"?
- johntash 1y ago
  I think they were claiming claude easily verified it? i.e. they have total faith in claude to not mess up
  - AndrewDucker 1y ago
    That's an interesting claim. I wonder how they would come to believe that.
behringer 1y ago
The policeman says to the judge, on the stand "I don't know why my sworn affidavit says that, your honor. But I can write twice as many affidavits now so it's all for the best."
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
rapind 1y ago
> If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value. This is the future fellow greybeards. We will be shunned for being try-hards, and when it turns out we were right?... Well no one likes a know it all.
Vegenoid 1y ago
If it’s easily verified as correct, then you should have verified its correctness before bringing it to someone more senior and asking for their help, and so you should be able to explain why it is there when they ask.
jalapenos 1y ago
Why do we need them then? If they're some dumb passthrough I can just replace them with a background agent

torben-friis 1y ago

Any situation where you’re submitting under your signature code to production without knowing what it does should be at the very least cause for a talk. I’m kinda shocked that this even has to be said.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ponector 1y ago

If you don't understand you code how you can be sure it's correct? You actually are pushing it into your colleagues who will verify and fix the code later.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
Testing. The only thing that changed with AI is that the narrative went from "you can't always know perfectly what every part of the program does" to "don't even try".
- ponector 1y ago
  Sad reality is test engineers headcount over last years was cut even more than developers. Most companies see testing as obstacle and unnecessary costs and has no will to invest into testing.
- 9dev 1y ago
  But the LLM writes the tests too. Probably even made some private methods public so it can test them, because you asked it to write a comprehensive test suite. It’s a beautiful self-jerk circle of shitty code based on wrong assumptions proven by correct tests testing shitty code based on wrong assumptions…
  - johntash 1y ago
    Or the wonderful loop of "These test steps are still failing, let's try something simpler and remove the failing tests. Great! The tests are passing now!"
rafaelero 1y ago
To be fair, even if you understand it that's doesn't mean it will work well.

oblio 1y ago

You, sir, have "executive" written all over you.

jalapenos 1y ago
Savage

AndrewDucker 1y ago

If you "don't know" then how could you have "easily verified it was correct"?

johntash 1y ago
I think they were claiming claude easily verified it? i.e. they have total faith in claude to not mess up
- AndrewDucker 1y ago
  That's an interesting claim. I wonder how they would come to believe that.

behringer 1y ago

The policeman says to the judge, on the stand "I don't know why my sworn affidavit says that, your honor. But I can write twice as many affidavits now so it's all for the best."

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

rapind 1y ago

> If someone is spending a bunch of time on code that Claude could have done and easily verified it was correct, they are going to move slower and produce less useful things of value. This is the future fellow greybeards. We will be shunned for being try-hards, and when it turns out we were right?... Well no one likes a know it all.

Vegenoid 1y ago

If it’s easily verified as correct, then you should have verified its correctness before bringing it to someone more senior and asking for their help, and so you should be able to explain why it is there when they ask.

jalapenos 1y ago

Why do we need them then? If they're some dumb passthrough I can just replace them with a background agent