4 ms·
I don't really agree with the premise of the article. Sure proxy measures are everywhere. But for knowledge work specifically you can usually check real quality
by rowanG077 6mo ago
I don't really agree with the premise of the article. Sure proxy measures are everywhere. But for knowledge work specifically you can usually check real quality. Of course it's not as extremely easy as "oh this report contains a few spelling errors", but it is doable. If you accepted work purely based on superficial proxy measures you were not fairly evaluating work at all.
- zingar 6mo agoI think there’s a weaker claim that holds true: we were able to ignore lots of content based on the superficial (and pay proper attention to work that passed this test) and now we are overwhelmed because everything meets the superficial criteria and we can’t pay proper attention to all of it.
- thehappyfellow 6mo agoThat's what I had in mind! The whole post is a claim that evaluating knowledge work got more expensive because cheaper measures stopped correlating well with quality. If someone was already evaluating the work output using a metric closer to the underlying quality then it might not have been a big shift for them (other than having much more work to evaluate).
- Izkata 6mo agoYou may have benefited from using the term we already had for the cheaper measures of negative code quality: code smells.
- zingar 6mo agoI find misapplication of anti-smell techniques a pretty cheap indicator that I’m looking at LLM garbage. I think they’re not really usefully engaging with that stuff yet.
- rowanG077 6mo agoYes, I agree that this is true! You could however only do that if you were fine with unfairly judging the quality of work, as you now readily discarded quality work based on superficial proxies. Which admittedly is done in a lot of cases.