4 ms·

It's also very easy to dismiss everyone falling into the "AI trap" as being mediocre in the first place, though. But one just can't know this without having see

by xyproto 2mo ago

It's also very easy to dismiss everyone falling into the "AI trap" as being mediocre in the first place, though. But one just can't know this without having seen their work pre-AI.

embedding-shape 2mo ago
I think people tend to forget that not only do we ourselves have different skillsets and can be amazing at one thing but horrible but another, but this also applies to other people in the world! Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. Maybe this «spearheading AI person» just sucks at AI related stuff, as clearly that approach is bananas, but they could still be a OK developer.
- skydhash 2mo ago
  > Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results or be a reverse centaur, then I’d be glad not to be able to work with them. I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow. No one argues against compilers, build tools, IDEs, task runners, deploy and orchestration tools. Because they are great levers that lets you create more with less effort.
  - vehemenz 2mo ago
    Many developers have narrow job descriptions, and the creative, productive uses of AI aren’t really obvious. Where it shines is glueing systems together or building one-off automations that would take days, or weeks, to figure out. It’s for things you don’t have time to figure out or didn’t think were possible.
  - yoz-y 2mo ago
    Eh. The useful LLM usage I see is in internal tools (bugs don’t matter because the output or UI is the only thing that counts and they are throw away) or personal projects that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Both of these can be quite invisible. But the benefit is there.
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results Why would it mean that? That's one way of using them, sure. Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects. > I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow Alright, does that mean you also believe it's impossible then that anyone out there is using AI in a "net positive" way for their development workflow? Or just that you've never seen it, but you're open to it existing?
    - skydhash 2mo ago
      > Or just that you've never seen it, but you're open to it existing? This one. Only a sith deals in absolute. I don’t mind experiments to try to find methodologies for those tools. And I believe there are instances where they’ve been successfully used. The issue I have is the kind of generic statements that they are good enough to replace currently established methodologies. Like using AI is a panacea. > Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects That’s a bit what I’m talking about. Have you investigated how it has helped you? And if there are other, more economical way to get the same result? Your statement seems more ritualistic than logical.
      - embedding-shape 2mo ago
        > Have you investigated how it has helped you? And if there are other, more economical way to get the same result? No I haven't, but I'm happy to just freeform walk you through my thinking on it: I typically write (wrote?) software for two purposes: consulting/freelancing for others so building what others want, or for simplifying and making my own life easier and more enjoyable. "Stupid" stuff like Home Assistant for example, isn't really life-or-death, or Jellyfin for that matter, both things my family relies on now, but our daily life just gets easier all throughout the day when everything works in sync with what we're doing. It used to be I had to make a decision what to spend time on, either I work on my professional stuff so we have enough money to survive (maybe more) and I get new challenges and all that, or I spend time improving and maintaining my home infrastructure, or whatever software I feel like I'd need to be better at doing my professional development. I no longer am making that choice, I'm spending less time in front of the computer, yet the output and quality of my work remains the same, and the code and design when I look at it, even stuff I shipped 6 months ago, I'm still happy with how the code is, which for me I guess is the way I validate if what I produce is good enough. Nowadays, my entire home-lab is configured with Nix and almost everything except my workstation and some random stuff, runs NixOS. Everything is hosted on a local Forgejo instance, which also has it's own (custom "written" of course) agent acting on issues and PRs, and I have my harness basically maintain my entire home lab at this point. Now I just open issues, have a conversation until everything is 100% clear, end up with a PR to review and merge if it looks good, and I can do this while juggling other things. I agree with you that there are tons of people who are selling LLMs as a panacea to lots of things, and there is so much over-hype in the industry and ecosystem, I also feel like every "new thing" kind of comes with this type of almost scamming, which sucks, and makes it hard to discern from real positive opinions vs just regurgitated opinions someone read somewhere. I'm not sure what the answer to that is, except perhaps as what you say, only a sith deals in absolutes. What are the exact "currently established methodologies" you're talking about that cannot be replaced by LLMs + a harness today, just as some examples? You're probably right that those exists, but I'm curious to hear what you think would be the most difficult to replace today.
  - tdeck 2mo ago
    I think many people did argue against these things when they were new. Compilers, for instance, were seen as a waste of the computer's resources and produced less than optimal code.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      They were right. Only after quite a lot of evolution did they start being wrong. And they're still not that good at SIMD. ffmpeg still uses assembly-code kernels.
    - naishoya 2mo ago
      That argument still stands, and is still right. Compilers do allow for some programmers to remain uninformed about the actual behaviour of the code they write and this has allowed for a number of actual harms in the outcome of code. (see: Fujitsu computers floating point errors and the British Postal System's persecution of her own Postmasters as one example among many cases) Also, the most performant code either has to be written such that a compiler doesn't incorrectly unroll it's loops or otherwise mangle the intent, or it has to be fine tuned after the fact to correct such mangling. Even Linus does this for the kernel in some cases. So, drawing the parallel, 'these are the new garbage' but 'old garbage became acceptable so we should accept the new garbage' as an argument in support of being a meat proxy for Markovian stochastic lossy compression-decompression chatbots is isn't very persuasive, especially among this community with a greater concentration of systems level programmers than the general population. That being said, i think both chatbots and compilers have a specific level of utility; neither of them should have unrestricted access to production filesystems or networks. That way be dragons.
  - rightbyte 2mo ago
    > No one argues against compilers, build tools, IDEs, task runners, deploy and orchestration tools. Uhm ... I've heard quite alot arguing against IDEs. And I feel IDEs are too much of a lock in.
  - throw-the-towel 2mo ago
    > No one argues against [...] deploy and orchestration tools. People do argue against Kubernetes!
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    I'll argue against half that stuff because you probably don't need it. Do you need kubernetes or does "scp service.exe server: && ssh server systemctl restart service" work for you? GitHub Actions is the worst thing I've ever had to work with and I'd rather have a shell script. What is a task runner, is it an overcomplicated way to SSH?
bigfishrunning 2mo ago
I think the "meat proxy" people are mediocre regardless of whether or not the were brilliant pre-AI. They've reduced themselves to a copy-paste go-between for claude and slack (or github or jira or whatever) and are mediocre now. If only they could turn back the clock...
- xyproto 2mo ago
  Some skills are easy re-pick-uppable, like bicycling. Mathematics is probably more challenging. Not sure about programming, especially "borint" business-like programming.
  - StableAlkyne 2mo ago
    There's a reason games like Factorio or Exapunks are so popular among engineers! Especially if you get a little burned out and can't bring yourself to contribute to a side project, but still want to do programming-ish things that get your brain moving
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Try the Factorissimo mod - it lets you make subroutines.
  - fn-mote 2mo ago
    Nah. After you have those skills, they don’t go away. Math: the most important stuff is the biggest picture. If you learned it properly (not just memorizing), that’s the last to fade. With programming, the details change but the fundamental skill doesn’t. Or hadn’t as of a few years ago.
    - bigfishrunning 2mo ago
      Does that really matter though if people aren't using the skills, and are just copying and pasting slop?
    - xyproto 2mo ago

by xyproto 2mo ago

It's also very easy to dismiss everyone falling into the "AI trap" as being mediocre in the first place, though. But one just can't know this without having seen their work pre-AI.

embedding-shape 2mo ago

I think people tend to forget that not only do we ourselves have different skillsets and can be amazing at one thing but horrible but another, but this also applies to other people in the world! Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. Maybe this «spearheading AI person» just sucks at AI related stuff, as clearly that approach is bananas, but they could still be a OK developer.

skydhash 2mo ago
> Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results or be a reverse centaur, then I’d be glad not to be able to work with them. I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow. No one argues against compilers, build tools, IDEs, task runners, deploy and orchestration tools. Because they are great levers that lets you create more with less effort.
- vehemenz 2mo ago
  Many developers have narrow job descriptions, and the creative, productive uses of AI aren’t really obvious. Where it shines is glueing systems together or building one-off automations that would take days, or weeks, to figure out. It’s for things you don’t have time to figure out or didn’t think were possible.
- yoz-y 2mo ago
  Eh. The useful LLM usage I see is in internal tools (bugs don’t matter because the output or UI is the only thing that counts and they are throw away) or personal projects that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Both of these can be quite invisible. But the benefit is there.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results Why would it mean that? That's one way of using them, sure. Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects. > I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow Alright, does that mean you also believe it's impossible then that anyone out there is using AI in a "net positive" way for their development workflow? Or just that you've never seen it, but you're open to it existing?
  - skydhash 2mo ago
    > Or just that you've never seen it, but you're open to it existing? This one. Only a sith deals in absolute. I don’t mind experiments to try to find methodologies for those tools. And I believe there are instances where they’ve been successfully used. The issue I have is the kind of generic statements that they are good enough to replace currently established methodologies. Like using AI is a panacea. > Personally, my code is better as I have more time to think about the software design than before, and I'm less avoidant of refactoring in my personal projects That’s a bit what I’m talking about. Have you investigated how it has helped you? And if there are other, more economical way to get the same result? Your statement seems more ritualistic than logical.
    - embedding-shape 2mo ago
      > Have you investigated how it has helped you? And if there are other, more economical way to get the same result? No I haven't, but I'm happy to just freeform walk you through my thinking on it: I typically write (wrote?) software for two purposes: consulting/freelancing for others so building what others want, or for simplifying and making my own life easier and more enjoyable. "Stupid" stuff like Home Assistant for example, isn't really life-or-death, or Jellyfin for that matter, both things my family relies on now, but our daily life just gets easier all throughout the day when everything works in sync with what we're doing. It used to be I had to make a decision what to spend time on, either I work on my professional stuff so we have enough money to survive (maybe more) and I get new challenges and all that, or I spend time improving and maintaining my home infrastructure, or whatever software I feel like I'd need to be better at doing my professional development. I no longer am making that choice, I'm spending less time in front of the computer, yet the output and quality of my work remains the same, and the code and design when I look at it, even stuff I shipped 6 months ago, I'm still happy with how the code is, which for me I guess is the way I validate if what I produce is good enough. Nowadays, my entire home-lab is configured with Nix and almost everything except my workstation and some random stuff, runs NixOS. Everything is hosted on a local Forgejo instance, which also has it's own (custom "written" of course) agent acting on issues and PRs, and I have my harness basically maintain my entire home lab at this point. Now I just open issues, have a conversation until everything is 100% clear, end up with a PR to review and merge if it looks good, and I can do this while juggling other things. I agree with you that there are tons of people who are selling LLMs as a panacea to lots of things, and there is so much over-hype in the industry and ecosystem, I also feel like every "new thing" kind of comes with this type of almost scamming, which sucks, and makes it hard to discern from real positive opinions vs just regurgitated opinions someone read somewhere. I'm not sure what the answer to that is, except perhaps as what you say, only a sith deals in absolutes. What are the exact "currently established methodologies" you're talking about that cannot be replaced by LLMs + a harness today, just as some examples? You're probably right that those exists, but I'm curious to hear what you think would be the most difficult to replace today.
- tdeck 2mo ago
  I think many people did argue against these things when they were new. Compilers, for instance, were seen as a waste of the computer's resources and produced less than optimal code.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    They were right. Only after quite a lot of evolution did they start being wrong. And they're still not that good at SIMD. ffmpeg still uses assembly-code kernels.
  - naishoya 2mo ago
    That argument still stands, and is still right. Compilers do allow for some programmers to remain uninformed about the actual behaviour of the code they write and this has allowed for a number of actual harms in the outcome of code. (see: Fujitsu computers floating point errors and the British Postal System's persecution of her own Postmasters as one example among many cases) Also, the most performant code either has to be written such that a compiler doesn't incorrectly unroll it's loops or otherwise mangle the intent, or it has to be fine tuned after the fact to correct such mangling. Even Linus does this for the kernel in some cases. So, drawing the parallel, 'these are the new garbage' but 'old garbage became acceptable so we should accept the new garbage' as an argument in support of being a meat proxy for Markovian stochastic lossy compression-decompression chatbots is isn't very persuasive, especially among this community with a greater concentration of systems level programmers than the general population. That being said, i think both chatbots and compilers have a specific level of utility; neither of them should have unrestricted access to production filesystems or networks. That way be dragons.
- rightbyte 2mo ago
  > No one argues against compilers, build tools, IDEs, task runners, deploy and orchestration tools. Uhm ... I've heard quite alot arguing against IDEs. And I feel IDEs are too much of a lock in.
- throw-the-towel 2mo ago
  > No one argues against [...] deploy and orchestration tools. People do argue against Kubernetes!
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I'll argue against half that stuff because you probably don't need it. Do you need kubernetes or does "scp service.exe server: && ssh server systemctl restart service" work for you? GitHub Actions is the worst thing I've ever had to work with and I'd rather have a shell script. What is a task runner, is it an overcomplicated way to SSH?

bigfishrunning 2mo ago

I think the "meat proxy" people are mediocre regardless of whether or not the were brilliant pre-AI. They've reduced themselves to a copy-paste go-between for claude and slack (or github or jira or whatever) and are mediocre now. If only they could turn back the clock...

xyproto 2mo ago
Some skills are easy re-pick-uppable, like bicycling. Mathematics is probably more challenging. Not sure about programming, especially "borint" business-like programming.
- StableAlkyne 2mo ago
  There's a reason games like Factorio or Exapunks are so popular among engineers! Especially if you get a little burned out and can't bring yourself to contribute to a side project, but still want to do programming-ish things that get your brain moving
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Try the Factorissimo mod - it lets you make subroutines.
- fn-mote 2mo ago
  Nah. After you have those skills, they don’t go away. Math: the most important stuff is the biggest picture. If you learned it properly (not just memorizing), that’s the last to fade. With programming, the details change but the fundamental skill doesn’t. Or hadn’t as of a few years ago.
  - bigfishrunning 2mo ago
    Does that really matter though if people aren't using the skills, and are just copying and pasting slop?
  - xyproto 2mo ago