3 ms·

This post calls out how you can't argue with these people because they say its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale huma

This post calls out how you can't argue with these people because they say its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" the top reply is from someone doing exactly that, arguing "but the agents are so fast!"

bayindirh 5mo ago
I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes. The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually? This AI thing is not progressing well. I don't like this.
- chrisweekly 5mo ago
  reliance, not resilience
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    Yep, you're right. I'm a bit tired and my fingers had a mind of their own. Thanks. :)
- Terr_ 5mo ago
  > The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". Oof. Potential "bad" outcomes of "game theory" should be calibrated to include all the bloody wars and genocides throughout recorded history. Why did the Foi-ites kill every man, woman and child of the conquered Bar-ite city? Because if they didn't, then they'd be at a disadvantage if the Bar-ites didn't reciprocate in the cities they conquered...
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    Yeah, I know. I had counter arguments more targeted towards his thinking style, but he preferred to think straight like a machine, in a bad way. The problem was not him, but the fact that the number of people who thinks like him. They may word it in a more benign form, but the idea is the same. So obsessed with being the first mover and winning the battle, never thinking whether they should, or what would happen with that scenario. Missing the whole forest and beyond for a single branch of a single tree.
- Sharlin 5mo ago
  An interesting ethical framework, your friend has.
  - bayindirh 5mo ago
    "Interesting" is a very brave and British way to put it, but yeah. Let's say I'm polar opposite of them, and we're on the same page with you.
  - busterarm 5mo ago
    Maybe. I could also interpret this as the friend being misunderstood. The whole "you'll be forced to do it" comes from the alternative being that you lose. You no longer get to be a player in the "game". In the same way that coopers and cobblers are no longer a significant thing, but we still have barrels and we still have shoes. Software engineers who refuse to employ any LLMs won't be market competitive. If you adopt it, you at least get to remain playing the game until the game changes/corrects. That's the part that's "not so bad". Choosing your own survival isn't ethically bankrupt.
- AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
  > It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. You'll be forced to do it, or lose. The unstated assumptions are that, first, it will work, and second, that you can't afford to lose. But let's just assume those for the sake of argument. > It can't be that bad That does not follow at all. It can in fact be that bad. That was what made the game theory of MAD different from the game theory of most other things.
Terr_ 5mo ago
Yeah: If the tools aren't good enough and fast enough to fix the bugs before release, what makes anyone think they'll be able to so easily catch up afterwards? Maybe they're assuming that doubling the code-base/features is more beneficial versus the damage from doubling the number of bugs... Well, at least for this quarter's news to investors...
dubeye 5mo ago
the reality is my business continues to operate at higher efficiency, even with the bugs. i don't think it's 'our side' that has the psychosis.
- solid_fuel 5mo ago
  Oh, well, if it makes you money right now, it couldn't possibly be wrong or detrimental long term. Glad we settled that debate.
  - dubeye 5mo ago
    The code is less buggy , on average. You're overestimating the average developer.
matt3210 5mo ago
If they’re so fast why not fix the bugs real quick before shipping
dnnddidiej 5mo ago
Yeah how do they know the fix doesn't have a bug and it will just keep deploying mire crap. What is the feedback loop, the customer?
coffeefirst 5mo ago
Which is super fun as a user because every day something doesn’t work and it’s a different something than yesterday.
teeray 5mo ago
My prediction is that in the next year, we’ll start to see some dismantling of code review at some companies. It might take the form of “AI-only review,” or something similar, but many companies are getting frustrated with developers saying “no” to immediately merging slop they can barely understand.
- Izkata 5mo ago
  Pretty sure I've seen references to AI-only review already happening...
glaslong 5mo ago
their ai must have missed that part of the post when it summarized to 3 bullet points

bayindirh 5mo ago

I was talking with a friend in the early days of AI boom. I argued that over-reliance in AI will create all kinds of catastrophes. The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". I mean, yes, logic is useful, but ignorance of risks? Assuming that moving blazingly fast and pulverizing things will result in good eventually? This AI thing is not progressing well. I don't like this.

chrisweekly 5mo ago
reliance, not resilience
- bayindirh 5mo ago
  Yep, you're right. I'm a bit tired and my fingers had a mind of their own. Thanks. :)
Terr_ 5mo ago
> The answer I got is "It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. It can't be that bad". Oof. Potential "bad" outcomes of "game theory" should be calibrated to include all the bloody wars and genocides throughout recorded history. Why did the Foi-ites kill every man, woman and child of the conquered Bar-ite city? Because if they didn't, then they'd be at a disadvantage if the Bar-ites didn't reciprocate in the cities they conquered...
- bayindirh 5mo ago
  Yeah, I know. I had counter arguments more targeted towards his thinking style, but he preferred to think straight like a machine, in a bad way. The problem was not him, but the fact that the number of people who thinks like him. They may word it in a more benign form, but the idea is the same. So obsessed with being the first mover and winning the battle, never thinking whether they should, or what would happen with that scenario. Missing the whole forest and beyond for a single branch of a single tree.
Sharlin 5mo ago
An interesting ethical framework, your friend has.
- bayindirh 5mo ago
  "Interesting" is a very brave and British way to put it, but yeah. Let's say I'm polar opposite of them, and we're on the same page with you.
- busterarm 5mo ago
  Maybe. I could also interpret this as the friend being misunderstood. The whole "you'll be forced to do it" comes from the alternative being that you lose. You no longer get to be a player in the "game". In the same way that coopers and cobblers are no longer a significant thing, but we still have barrels and we still have shoes. Software engineers who refuse to employ any LLMs won't be market competitive. If you adopt it, you at least get to remain playing the game until the game changes/corrects. That's the part that's "not so bad". Choosing your own survival isn't ethically bankrupt.
AnimalMuppet 5mo ago
> It's game theory. Someone will do it, and you'll be forced to do it, too. You'll be forced to do it, or lose. The unstated assumptions are that, first, it will work, and second, that you can't afford to lose. But let's just assume those for the sake of argument. > It can't be that bad That does not follow at all. It can in fact be that bad. That was what made the game theory of MAD different from the game theory of most other things.

Terr_ 5mo ago

Yeah: If the tools aren't good enough and fast enough to fix the bugs before release, what makes anyone think they'll be able to so easily catch up afterwards? Maybe they're assuming that doubling the code-base/features is more beneficial versus the damage from doubling the number of bugs... Well, at least for this quarter's news to investors...

dubeye 5mo ago

the reality is my business continues to operate at higher efficiency, even with the bugs. i don't think it's 'our side' that has the psychosis.

solid_fuel 5mo ago
Oh, well, if it makes you money right now, it couldn't possibly be wrong or detrimental long term. Glad we settled that debate.
- dubeye 5mo ago
  The code is less buggy , on average. You're overestimating the average developer.

matt3210 5mo ago

If they’re so fast why not fix the bugs real quick before shipping

dnnddidiej 5mo ago

Yeah how do they know the fix doesn't have a bug and it will just keep deploying mire crap. What is the feedback loop, the customer?

coffeefirst 5mo ago

Which is super fun as a user because every day something doesn’t work and it’s a different something than yesterday.

teeray 5mo ago

My prediction is that in the next year, we’ll start to see some dismantling of code review at some companies. It might take the form of “AI-only review,” or something similar, but many companies are getting frustrated with developers saying “no” to immediately merging slop they can barely understand.

Izkata 5mo ago
Pretty sure I've seen references to AI-only review already happening...

glaslong 5mo ago

their ai must have missed that part of the post when it summarized to 3 bullet points