5 ms·
It's already out of date because it makes no sense. If it's true that the superficial signals of quality were once somehow good enough to keep the entire econom
by dcre 6mo ago
It's already out of date because it makes no sense. If it's true that the superficial signals of quality were once somehow good enough to keep the entire economy on the rails (it's not true), surely you can have an LLM look at given piece of work and extract comparably useful signals of quality or effort.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- Izkata 6mo ago> If it's true that the superficial signals of quality were once somehow good enough to keep the entire economy on the rails (it's not true) It was true. The negative signals (we called them "code smells") weren't the be-all-end-all of reviews, they indicated to the reviewer where to spend more effort. It got us 90% of the benefit of an in-depth review with 10% of the effort. But with LLMs eliminating this, we now have to spend all our effort on everything, taking a lot more time and energy overall.
- dcre 6mo agoI think it’s true that we were able to establish trust and produce good work without verifying every detail — what I’m suggesting is that signals of that kind were not a very important factor. And code smells still work!