4 ms·

So many efforts out there to alter the usage of the tool to regain control, when it's clear to me that the tool is the problem? By which I mean, we should -- a

So many efforts out there to alter the usage of the tool to regain control, when it's clear to me that the tool is the problem? By which I mean, we should -- as software engineers -- be insisting on tools that put us in the driver's seat more. Instead we're letting the agent drive. (I'm as guilty as this as anybody). But really we're letting Dario, Sam, Boris, etc. drive. And it should be clear from their public pronouncements and emissions that they don't have the best interests of our profession -- or the quality of software engineering generally -- in mind. Yes, certainly, alter how you use the tools. But we need to fix the tools themselves.

yondys 5mo ago
That's an interesting idea, but if the tools are really the problem, is there an actual way that we can solve this? How?
coldtea 5mo ago
>By which I mean, we should -- as software engineers -- be insisting on tools that put us in the driver's seat more. And the company says "fuck you then, I'll fire you, and keep fewer coders, willing to keep the AI dance". The role of AI as a tech is to put you out of the drivers seat as much as possible. All the way to job elimination. Solution?
- cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
  And by doing that said companies are devaluing their own IP and creating an organizational knowledge debt. Companies that work that way will in long run get outcompeted by shops that figure out (I don't know how) how to manage this better.
  - coldtea 5mo ago
    What's worse, companies might be fine with "devaluing their own IP", since companies are not deciding, execs are. And those execs will get their bonuses anyway, and will be drinking their champagne far away from their executive roles and the company by the time that's felt.
  - My_Name 5mo ago
    I think the opposite, as agents approach human levels of coding and multiple agents work together as a team to code, and check that code in an adversarial manner, companies that do not adopt them will put out less code, of lower quality, for far more money. There is no mitigation for that situation which would allow human coders to retain their place in the ecosystem. A man can dig a ditch in a week for £500. 7 men can dig a ditch in a day for £700. 1 man and a digger can dig a ditch in a day for £250. "But I use knowledge and my brain to do my job, my job is special!" Not any more it isn't...
8note 5mo ago
the tools are in their infancy, and very little out of the power the coding model provides has actually been tried yet
- cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
  Agreed. They're crude, and also implemented as a sidecar to the actual coding process. Just "hey go do this" which.. I mean... fine, it works, but it's not exactly helping with knowledge acquisition and maintenance.
  - My_Name 5mo ago
    Ultimately, what is the point of knowledge acquisition and easy maintenance? To make the work easier for humans to do. What is the point of knowledge acquisition by humans and easy maintenance if an AI is doing the work? Some people paint, but if you want to record a scene instantly you press a button on a camera. You don't need to know what the camera does to record the image, you don't need to know how to paint, or anything to do with image manipulation. The tool takes care of that for you. Humans have always offloaded work to machines any chance they get. Other humans have always cried that those tools are the end of human ability, from just writing in 370BC to the smartphone in 2007.

yondys 5mo ago

That's an interesting idea, but if the tools are really the problem, is there an actual way that we can solve this? How?

coldtea 5mo ago

>By which I mean, we should -- as software engineers -- be insisting on tools that put us in the driver's seat more. And the company says "fuck you then, I'll fire you, and keep fewer coders, willing to keep the AI dance". The role of AI as a tech is to put you out of the drivers seat as much as possible. All the way to job elimination. Solution?

cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
And by doing that said companies are devaluing their own IP and creating an organizational knowledge debt. Companies that work that way will in long run get outcompeted by shops that figure out (I don't know how) how to manage this better.
- coldtea 5mo ago
  What's worse, companies might be fine with "devaluing their own IP", since companies are not deciding, execs are. And those execs will get their bonuses anyway, and will be drinking their champagne far away from their executive roles and the company by the time that's felt.
- My_Name 5mo ago
  I think the opposite, as agents approach human levels of coding and multiple agents work together as a team to code, and check that code in an adversarial manner, companies that do not adopt them will put out less code, of lower quality, for far more money. There is no mitigation for that situation which would allow human coders to retain their place in the ecosystem. A man can dig a ditch in a week for £500. 7 men can dig a ditch in a day for £700. 1 man and a digger can dig a ditch in a day for £250. "But I use knowledge and my brain to do my job, my job is special!" Not any more it isn't...

8note 5mo ago

the tools are in their infancy, and very little out of the power the coding model provides has actually been tried yet

cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
Agreed. They're crude, and also implemented as a sidecar to the actual coding process. Just "hey go do this" which.. I mean... fine, it works, but it's not exactly helping with knowledge acquisition and maintenance.
- My_Name 5mo ago
  Ultimately, what is the point of knowledge acquisition and easy maintenance? To make the work easier for humans to do. What is the point of knowledge acquisition by humans and easy maintenance if an AI is doing the work? Some people paint, but if you want to record a scene instantly you press a button on a camera. You don't need to know what the camera does to record the image, you don't need to know how to paint, or anything to do with image manipulation. The tool takes care of that for you. Humans have always offloaded work to machines any chance they get. Other humans have always cried that those tools are the end of human ability, from just writing in 370BC to the smartphone in 2007.