3 ms·

I would say it is like that. No one HAS to use AI. But the shared goal is to get a change to the codebase to achieve a desired outcome. Some will outsource a si

by hectdev 10mo ago

I would say it is like that. No one HAS to use AI. But the shared goal is to get a change to the codebase to achieve a desired outcome. Some will outsource a significant part of that to AI, some won't. And its tricky because I'm trying not to appeal to emotion despite being fascinated with how this tool has enabled me to do things in a short amount of time that it would have taken me weeks of grinding to get to and improves my communication with stakeholders. That feels world changing. Specifically my world and the day-to-day roll I play when it comes to getting things done. I think it is fine that it fell short of your expectations. It often does for me as well but it's when it gets me 80% of the way there in less than a day's work, then my mind is blown. It's an imperfect tool and I'm sorry for saying this but so are we. Treat its imperfections in the same way you would with a JR developer- feedback, reframing, restrictions, and iterate.

moduspol 10mo ago
> But the shared goal is to get a change to the codebase to achieve a desired outcome. I'd argue that's not true. It's more of a stated goal. The actual goal is to achieve the desired outcome in a way that has manageable, understood side effects, and that can be maintained and built upon over time by all capable team members. The difference between what business folks see as the "output" of software developers (code) and what (good) software developers actually deliver over time is significant. AI can definitely do the former. The latter is less clear. This is one of the fundamental disconnects in discussions about AI in software development.
- hectdev 10mo ago
  In my personal use case, I work at a company that has SO MUCH process and documentation for coding standards. I made an AI agent that knows all that and used it to update legacy code to the new standard in a day. Something that would have taken weeks if not more. If your desire is manageable code, make that a requirement. I'm going to say this next thing as someone with a lot of negative bias about corporations. I was laid off from Twitter when Elon bought the company and at a second company that was hemorrhaging users. Our job isn't to write code, it's to make the machine do the thing. All the effort for clean, manageable, etc is purely in the interest of the programmer but at the end of the day, launching the feature that pulls in money is the point.
  - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
    How did you verify that your AI agent performed the update correctly? I've experienced a number of cases where an AI agent made a change that seemed right at first glance, maybe even passed code review, but fell apart completely when it came time to build on top of it.
    - hectdev 10mo ago
      Unit tests, manual testing the final product, PR with two approvals needed (and one was from the most anal retentive reviewer at the company who is heavily invested in the changes I made), and QA.
    - spopejoy 10mo ago
      > made a change that seemed right at first glance, maybe even passed code review, but fell apart completely when it came time to build on top of it Maybe I'm not understanding you're point, but this is the kind of thing that happens in software teams all the time and is one of those "that's why they call it work" realities of the job. If something "seems right/passed review/fell apart" then that's the reviewer's fault right? Which happens, all the time! Reviewers tend to fall back to tropes and "is there tests ok great" and whatever their hobbyhorses tend to be, ignoring others. It's ok because "at least it's getting reviewed" and the sausage gets made. If AI slashed the amount of time to get a solution past review, it buys you time to retroactively fix too, and a good attitude when you tell it that PR 1234 is why we're in this mess.
      - prewett 10mo ago
        > If something "seems right/passed review/fell apart" then that's the reviewer's fault right? No, it's the author's fault. The point of a code review is not to ensure correctness, it is to improve code quality (correctness, maintainability, style consistency, reuse of existing functions, knowledge transfer, etc).
        spopejoy 10mo ago
Freak_NL 10mo ago
> No one HAS to use AI. Well… That's no longer true, is it? My partner (IT analyst) works for a company owned by a multinational big corporation, and she got told during a meeting with her manager that use of AI is going to become mandatory next year. That's going to be a thing across the board. And have you called a large company for any reason lately? Could be your telco provider, your bank, public transport company, whatever. You call them, because online contact means haggling with an AI chatbot first to finally give up and shunt you over to an actual person who can help, and contact forms and e-mail have been killed off. Calling is not exactly as bad, but step one nowadays is 'please describe what you're calling for', where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person. AI is already unavoidable.
- hectdev 10mo ago
  It isn't a universal thing. I have no doubt there is a job out there that that isn't a requirement. I think the issue is the C-level folks are seeing how more productive someone might be and making it a demand. That to me is the wrong approach. If you demonstrate and build interest, the adoption will happen.
- kentm 10mo ago
  > where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person. If you're lucky. I've had LLMs that just repeatedly hang up on me when they obviously hit a dead end.
- palmotea 10mo ago
  > My partner (IT analyst) works for a company owned by a multinational big corporation, and she got told during a meeting with her manager that use of AI is going to become mandatory next year. That's going to be a thing across the board. My multinational big corporation employer has reporting about how much each employee uses AI, with a naughty list of employees who aren't meeting their quota of AI usage.
  - ryandrake 10mo ago
    Nothing says "this product is useful" quite like forcing people to use it and punishing people who don't. If it was that good, there'd be organic demand to use it. People would be begging to use it, going around their boss's back to use it. The fact that companies have to force you to use it with quotas and threats is damning.

by hectdev 10mo ago

moduspol 10mo ago

> But the shared goal is to get a change to the codebase to achieve a desired outcome. I'd argue that's not true. It's more of a stated goal. The actual goal is to achieve the desired outcome in a way that has manageable, understood side effects, and that can be maintained and built upon over time by all capable team members. The difference between what business folks see as the "output" of software developers (code) and what (good) software developers actually deliver over time is significant. AI can definitely do the former. The latter is less clear. This is one of the fundamental disconnects in discussions about AI in software development.

hectdev 10mo ago
In my personal use case, I work at a company that has SO MUCH process and documentation for coding standards. I made an AI agent that knows all that and used it to update legacy code to the new standard in a day. Something that would have taken weeks if not more. If your desire is manageable code, make that a requirement. I'm going to say this next thing as someone with a lot of negative bias about corporations. I was laid off from Twitter when Elon bought the company and at a second company that was hemorrhaging users. Our job isn't to write code, it's to make the machine do the thing. All the effort for clean, manageable, etc is purely in the interest of the programmer but at the end of the day, launching the feature that pulls in money is the point.
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  How did you verify that your AI agent performed the update correctly? I've experienced a number of cases where an AI agent made a change that seemed right at first glance, maybe even passed code review, but fell apart completely when it came time to build on top of it.
  - hectdev 10mo ago
    Unit tests, manual testing the final product, PR with two approvals needed (and one was from the most anal retentive reviewer at the company who is heavily invested in the changes I made), and QA.
  - spopejoy 10mo ago
    > made a change that seemed right at first glance, maybe even passed code review, but fell apart completely when it came time to build on top of it Maybe I'm not understanding you're point, but this is the kind of thing that happens in software teams all the time and is one of those "that's why they call it work" realities of the job. If something "seems right/passed review/fell apart" then that's the reviewer's fault right? Which happens, all the time! Reviewers tend to fall back to tropes and "is there tests ok great" and whatever their hobbyhorses tend to be, ignoring others. It's ok because "at least it's getting reviewed" and the sausage gets made. If AI slashed the amount of time to get a solution past review, it buys you time to retroactively fix too, and a good attitude when you tell it that PR 1234 is why we're in this mess.
    - prewett 10mo ago
      > If something "seems right/passed review/fell apart" then that's the reviewer's fault right? No, it's the author's fault. The point of a code review is not to ensure correctness, it is to improve code quality (correctness, maintainability, style consistency, reuse of existing functions, knowledge transfer, etc).
      - spopejoy 10mo ago

Freak_NL 10mo ago

> No one HAS to use AI. Well… That's no longer true, is it? My partner (IT analyst) works for a company owned by a multinational big corporation, and she got told during a meeting with her manager that use of AI is going to become mandatory next year. That's going to be a thing across the board. And have you called a large company for any reason lately? Could be your telco provider, your bank, public transport company, whatever. You call them, because online contact means haggling with an AI chatbot first to finally give up and shunt you over to an actual person who can help, and contact forms and e-mail have been killed off. Calling is not exactly as bad, but step one nowadays is 'please describe what you're calling for', where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person. AI is already unavoidable.

hectdev 10mo ago
It isn't a universal thing. I have no doubt there is a job out there that that isn't a requirement. I think the issue is the C-level folks are seeing how more productive someone might be and making it a demand. That to me is the wrong approach. If you demonstrate and build interest, the adoption will happen.
kentm 10mo ago
> where some LLM will try to parse that, fail miserably, and then shunt you to an actual person. If you're lucky. I've had LLMs that just repeatedly hang up on me when they obviously hit a dead end.
palmotea 10mo ago
> My partner (IT analyst) works for a company owned by a multinational big corporation, and she got told during a meeting with her manager that use of AI is going to become mandatory next year. That's going to be a thing across the board. My multinational big corporation employer has reporting about how much each employee uses AI, with a naughty list of employees who aren't meeting their quota of AI usage.
- ryandrake 10mo ago
  Nothing says "this product is useful" quite like forcing people to use it and punishing people who don't. If it was that good, there'd be organic demand to use it. People would be begging to use it, going around their boss's back to use it. The fact that companies have to force you to use it with quotas and threats is damning.