4 ms·

Making software is no longer very hard. It's becoming a few steps up from burger flipping. Maybe somewhere around line chef. There's still some skill involved,

Making software is no longer very hard. It's becoming a few steps up from burger flipping. Maybe somewhere around line chef. There's still some skill involved, but the skill is mostly in manual testing, and accurately phrasing what went wrong. The AI is better at debugging than people are, and the code isn't great, but perfectly adequate for pretty much everything. And it's even fine at system design these days. It's interesting realizing how mind numbingly thoughtless my job has become. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind it if this was skilled work, but it just isn't.

leptoniscool 2mo ago
/s
polotics 2mo ago
Can you link us to your git repo(s) and/or other artifacts that demonstrate this take? I and many other here I think won't agree, and we mostly love being taught.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
  Nope. I don't code for fun, and my employer will be very unhappy if I start sending people private repos.
ethin 2mo ago
Interesting take. Can you link us to your (correct, maybe even formally correct) AI-generated software? Given how general this post is, I assume you wouldn't mind if I extend this to, Idk, aviation or spaceflight, so mind linking to any GH repos you have where you've written code to work in environments like that? I ask because all you said was "making software" and didn't say what kind of "software" we're talking about.
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
  Since you apparently work on this kind of software, here's a challenge for you: take the last several bugs that were reported and paste them into Fable, pointing it at your code. How long does it take? Does it find the issue? In more or less time than the engineers took? Ask it to review your code for design and cohesiveness issues. How does it do?
  - ethin 2mo ago
    Sorry, but we aren't talking about me here. You were the one who made the claim that AI pretty much makes making software trivial nowadays. Specifically, you wrote: > Making software is no longer very hard. It's becoming a few steps up from burger flipping. Maybe somewhere around line chef. You did acknowledge that "some" skill was required: > There's still some skill involved, but the skill is mostly in manual testing, and accurately phrasing what went wrong. The AI is better at debugging than people are, and the code isn't great, but perfectly adequate for pretty much everything. And it's even fine at system design these days. All I asked was for you to back this up, since the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to prove it for you.
    - a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
      Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems? Interesting. A little unhinged, but interesting. Anyways, as I said elsewhere, I don't code for fun, and my employer would be unhappy if I sent you their proprietary code. You can decide to do some experiments yourself, or you can decide that you don't want to hear it. No skin off my back either way.
      - ethin 2mo ago
        > Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems? No, I didn't. I asked you to provide me an example of code that you had generated via AI that might survive in such an environment. But if you re-read my original post, I also gave you an escape hatch: just code that was correct. Not even formally. I'd say your refusal to provide any examples of your original claim is pretty telling, and your reasoning is pretty convenient for you, now isn't it? Edit: also, I'd like to point out that it was you who used the word "software" as a general claim. You never specified what kind of software. Since you continue to expect me to derive the proof for you instead of you providing the evidence, I don't see any need to continue this discussion since nobody is obviously going to learn anything. I'm sure many of us here would love to learn what secret sauce your using that makes software engineering so trivial, but you don't seem willing to actually provide that.

leptoniscool 2mo ago

polotics 2mo ago

Can you link us to your git repo(s) and/or other artifacts that demonstrate this take? I and many other here I think won't agree, and we mostly love being taught.

a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
Nope. I don't code for fun, and my employer will be very unhappy if I start sending people private repos.

ethin 2mo ago

Interesting take. Can you link us to your (correct, maybe even formally correct) AI-generated software? Given how general this post is, I assume you wouldn't mind if I extend this to, Idk, aviation or spaceflight, so mind linking to any GH repos you have where you've written code to work in environments like that? I ask because all you said was "making software" and didn't say what kind of "software" we're talking about.

a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
Since you apparently work on this kind of software, here's a challenge for you: take the last several bugs that were reported and paste them into Fable, pointing it at your code. How long does it take? Does it find the issue? In more or less time than the engineers took? Ask it to review your code for design and cohesiveness issues. How does it do?
- ethin 2mo ago
  Sorry, but we aren't talking about me here. You were the one who made the claim that AI pretty much makes making software trivial nowadays. Specifically, you wrote: > Making software is no longer very hard. It's becoming a few steps up from burger flipping. Maybe somewhere around line chef. You did acknowledge that "some" skill was required: > There's still some skill involved, but the skill is mostly in manual testing, and accurately phrasing what went wrong. The AI is better at debugging than people are, and the code isn't great, but perfectly adequate for pretty much everything. And it's even fine at system design these days. All I asked was for you to back this up, since the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not on me to prove it for you.
  - a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
    Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems? Interesting. A little unhinged, but interesting. Anyways, as I said elsewhere, I don't code for fun, and my employer would be unhappy if I sent you their proprietary code. You can decide to do some experiments yourself, or you can decide that you don't want to hear it. No skin off my back either way.
    - ethin 2mo ago
      > Oh. So, because I said I work in software you assumed I worked in safety critical systems? No, I didn't. I asked you to provide me an example of code that you had generated via AI that might survive in such an environment. But if you re-read my original post, I also gave you an escape hatch: just code that was correct. Not even formally. I'd say your refusal to provide any examples of your original claim is pretty telling, and your reasoning is pretty convenient for you, now isn't it? Edit: also, I'd like to point out that it was you who used the word "software" as a general claim. You never specified what kind of software. Since you continue to expect me to derive the proof for you instead of you providing the evidence, I don't see any need to continue this discussion since nobody is obviously going to learn anything. I'm sure many of us here would love to learn what secret sauce your using that makes software engineering so trivial, but you don't seem willing to actually provide that.