5 ms·

"junior developers" is a convenient label, it is incorrect but it will take a bit until we come up something that describes entities that: - can write code -

by sorokod 11mo ago

"junior developers" is a convenient label, it is incorrect but it will take a bit until we come up something that describes entities that: - can write code - tireless - have no aspirations - have no stylistic or architectural preferences - have massive, but at the same time not well defined, body of knowledge - have no intrinsic memories of past interactions. - change in unexpected ways when underlying models change - ... Edit: Drones? Drains?

auspiv 11mo ago
I describe them in the claude training I'm doing for my company as: super smart, infinitely patient, overeager interns
- kvirani 11mo ago
  Sometimes smart sometimes the opposite, though. Perhaps due to memory loss.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    Not sure "smart" or "dumb" are even the right axis to be judging them by, seems like intrinsically human traits.
throwawaysleep 11mo ago
Sounds like a junior developer? They can usually write code, but not that well. They have lots of energy and little to say about architecture and style. Don't have a well defined body of knowledge and have no experience. Individual juniors don't change, but the cast members of your junior cohort regularly do.
- theshrike79 11mo ago
  The problem with AI Agents like Claude is that they write VERY good code and very fast. But they don't have a grasp for the project's architecture and will reinvent the wheel for feature X even when feature Y has it or there is an internal common library that does it. This is why you need to be the "manager of agents" and stay on top of their work. Sometimes it's just about hitting ESC and going "waitaminute, why'd you do that?" and sometimes it's about updating the project documentation (AGENTS.md, docs/) with extra information. Example: I have a project with a system that builds "rules" using a specific interpreter. Every LLM wants to "optimise" it by using a pattern that looks correct, but will in fact break immediately when there's more than one simultaneous user - and I have a unit test that catches it. I got bored by LLMs trying to optimise the bit wrong, so I added a specific instruction, with reasoning why it shouldn't be attempted and has been tried and failed multiple times. And now they stopped doing it =)
shermantanktop 11mo ago
- don't learn from what you tell them - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer.
- cambaceres 11mo ago
  Sounds like my teammates.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  - don't learn from what you tell them We'll fix that, eventually. - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals Easy to train for, if it turns out to be necessary. I'd always assumed that a competitive drive would be necessary in order to achieve or at least simulate human-level intelligence, but things don't seem to be playing out that way. - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. Or on the picket line. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer. Good deal. Less human suffering is usually worth striving for.
  - noduerme 11mo ago
    Replace suffering with caring and have your AI write that again.
    - CamperBob2 11mo ago
      Why would I do a goofy thing like that?
      - noduerme 11mo ago
        >>Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. Have you ever spent any time around children? How about people who think they're accomplishing a great mission by releasing truly noxious ones on the world? You just dismissed the entire notion of accountability as an unnecessary form of suffering, which is right up there with the most nihilistic ideas ever said by, idk, Dostoevsky's underground man or Raskolnikov. Don't waste your life on being the Joker.
astrange 11mo ago
You'd also have no intrinsic memory of past interactions if we removed your hippocampus. Coincidentally, the hippocampus looks like a seahorse (emoji). It's all connected.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  > the hippocampus looks like a seahorse Not to mention; hippocampus literally means "seahorse" in Greek. I knew neither of those things before today, thanks!
thatoneengineer 11mo ago
"brooms"
- edflsafoiewq 11mo ago
  *distant sound of the sorcerer's apprentice is heard*
antfarm 11mo ago
- constantly ignore your advice - constantly give wrong answers, with surprising confidence - constantly apologize, then make the same mistake again immediately - constantly forget what you just told them - ...
kranke155 11mo ago
Robots ?
- aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
  clankers.

by sorokod 11mo ago

auspiv 11mo ago

I describe them in the claude training I'm doing for my company as: super smart, infinitely patient, overeager interns

kvirani 11mo ago
Sometimes smart sometimes the opposite, though. Perhaps due to memory loss.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Not sure "smart" or "dumb" are even the right axis to be judging them by, seems like intrinsically human traits.

throwawaysleep 11mo ago

Sounds like a junior developer? They can usually write code, but not that well. They have lots of energy and little to say about architecture and style. Don't have a well defined body of knowledge and have no experience. Individual juniors don't change, but the cast members of your junior cohort regularly do.

theshrike79 11mo ago
The problem with AI Agents like Claude is that they write VERY good code and very fast. But they don't have a grasp for the project's architecture and will reinvent the wheel for feature X even when feature Y has it or there is an internal common library that does it. This is why you need to be the "manager of agents" and stay on top of their work. Sometimes it's just about hitting ESC and going "waitaminute, why'd you do that?" and sometimes it's about updating the project documentation (AGENTS.md, docs/) with extra information. Example: I have a project with a system that builds "rules" using a specific interpreter. Every LLM wants to "optimise" it by using a pattern that looks correct, but will in fact break immediately when there's more than one simultaneous user - and I have a unit test that catches it. I got bored by LLMs trying to optimise the bit wrong, so I added a specific instruction, with reasoning why it shouldn't be attempted and has been tried and failed multiple times. And now they stopped doing it =)

shermantanktop 11mo ago

- don't learn from what you tell them - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer.

cambaceres 11mo ago
Sounds like my teammates.
CamperBob2 11mo ago
- don't learn from what you tell them We'll fix that, eventually. - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals Easy to train for, if it turns out to be necessary. I'd always assumed that a competitive drive would be necessary in order to achieve or at least simulate human-level intelligence, but things don't seem to be playing out that way. - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. Or on the picket line. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer. Good deal. Less human suffering is usually worth striving for.
- noduerme 11mo ago
  Replace suffering with caring and have your AI write that again.
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    Why would I do a goofy thing like that?
    - noduerme 11mo ago
      >>Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. Have you ever spent any time around children? How about people who think they're accomplishing a great mission by releasing truly noxious ones on the world? You just dismissed the entire notion of accountability as an unnecessary form of suffering, which is right up there with the most nihilistic ideas ever said by, idk, Dostoevsky's underground man or Raskolnikov. Don't waste your life on being the Joker.

astrange 11mo ago

You'd also have no intrinsic memory of past interactions if we removed your hippocampus. Coincidentally, the hippocampus looks like a seahorse (emoji). It's all connected.

embedding-shape 11mo ago
> the hippocampus looks like a seahorse Not to mention; hippocampus literally means "seahorse" in Greek. I knew neither of those things before today, thanks!

thatoneengineer 11mo ago

"brooms"

edflsafoiewq 11mo ago
*distant sound of the sorcerer's apprentice is heard*

antfarm 11mo ago

- constantly ignore your advice - constantly give wrong answers, with surprising confidence - constantly apologize, then make the same mistake again immediately - constantly forget what you just told them - ...

kranke155 11mo ago

Robots ?

aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
clankers.