5 ms·

Fighting the ocean is futile

by corndoge 2mo ago

trip-zip 2mo ago
So is completely eliminating litter, but I still pick it up when I pass it.
- noisy_boy 2mo ago
  Everybody generally agrees on what is garbage. Lot of senior management doesn't think AI is garbage or even if they privately think so, they don't say that openly. Falling in line, peer pressure, not wanting to come across as anti-AI luddite etc. All those issues affect the individual contributors too + the added challenge of perception in front of those who decide the bonus and lately, continued employment. In this fucked up job market, it is easier said than done.
  - abustamam 2mo ago
    I feel like the chain kinda goes all the way to the top, to the level of shareholders. My boss needs to give his boss the perception that the engineering team is firing on all cylinders and has high velocity, so that he can sell that story to shareholders who could easily invest in another "AI-native" company and make more money because they're growing like crazy. I feel like it's all just perception and how companies can sell their stories to investors or potential acquirers, and everything else can be punted and dealt with later when we get acquired or when share prices are a zillion dollars etc. It's a race to the bottom, for sure.
delecti 2mo ago
It's not the ocean, it's the poster's own team. A simple "AI comments suck" in a sprint retro would be trivially easy and would at least start the conversation.
- VohuMana 2mo ago
  I think the biggest issue might not be the immediate team but upper leadership. Companies which have mandated AI usage override a lot of what an individual or individual team wants. If that’s the case then it would be a lot like fighting the ocean, especially if your immediate team sees having AI write docs as an easy way to move the needle on LT’s AI monitoring dashboard.
- stronglikedan 2mo ago
  Doesn't matter. You'll come off as the baddie. It's the foreseeable future. Best just to learn how to interpret AI generated shit, or learn how to run it through AI and have it translate it to a more concise format without all the buzzwords. It'll take getting used to, but it'll save your career.
  - wpietri 2mo ago
    You don't have to come across as the baddie. There are plenty of neutral ways to start the conversation. E.g., "I notice that there's a lot more generated comments lately. How much are people finding those useful?" If you really want to save your career, learning how to have real conversations is a vital skill.
    - mannanj 2mo ago
      Have you worked in corporate recently or at a particularly toxic one? Asking because when I was at capital one, certain comments or questions about topics like this, would actually get you noticed negatively by your manager and being disruptive to what leadership wants hurts your career. In fact being the one to ask and point out questions like yours ultimately got me PIP'ed and removed from the company. So, like, yeah, being vulnerable and the first one to tell the truth is risky. That's why the bystander effect can happen and in politics or risky situations silence is a common response, and why we don't have more courageous people doing the right thing - because the risk is higher on the person speaking up and the rewards aren't disproportionately in their favor (but are evenly distributed though, so its not favorable for you as I learned from a game theory perspective to voice up / defend certain stances).
      - annzabelle 2mo ago
        Capital One is a particularly toxic work environment, and I'm not sure that your experiences there apply to other companies. I started my first post-Capital One job a few months ago, and I'm still not used to the fact that this company expects everybody working here to still be working here in two years. Most employers are not going through everybody with a fine tooth comb every 6 months hunting for any hint of an excuse to PIP them.
- swat535 2mo ago
  You're going to have convince upper management why the team's velocity is suddenly affected in feature releases once they stop using AI. All the execs know that they can refresh the screen faster and see the features for marketing and sales. When has engineering ever had a voice anyway? The bean counters have been looking to cut us out since the inception of our industry.
  - delecti 2mo ago
    > My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments That's the behavior being discussed. In my experience, overly large PRs are a detriment to productivity, so if anything my suggestion (asking one's coworkers to stop that) might lead to an improvement in velocity. If I have to read an essay before and throughout every PR, I'm not going to be able to review that very quickly.
- wavemode 2mo ago
  While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it is very similar to whenever anyone complains about things where they work. "Well, why don't you just raise it with management?" You're assuming that management 1) Understands the problem ("what are comments?") 2) Accepts that it is a problem ("how can more comments be a bad thing?") 3) Cares enough to solve the problem ("is this issue really a priority to solve right now? just accept the PR and we'll go back and fix if needed some other time cough never cough") 4) Believes you (this can take many forms, but the most common is, subconsciously, "this other engineer says it's not a problem, so I'll just assume it's not since that's easier") All of these logistical, political and social factors are "the ocean"
  - delecti 2mo ago
    Sprint retro is with your own team. And disagreement isn't a problem, at least then there would be the potential to come to a common understanding between the GP comment and their coworkers.
  - Perepiska 2mo ago
    I usually require to file an issue in bug tracker about problem in #3 and then follow all its updates to prevent silent closing by management. It won't help but annoys management a lot and they afraid to get more backlog issues of such sort from me in the future.
  - tripledry 2mo ago
    Seems to me if technical decisions on the level of "no more AI comments" go through management the organization doesn't know what they are doing. To be fair, I would not be surprised.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
  It's the management desired direction, if the place is anything like my workplace. Everyone is all in on AI, and if you're not using it for everything possible, you're on the chopping block. And, really, it works. You can copy and paste between tickets and Claude, and then do manual testing. Then you tell Claude to self-review for clarity and minimalism, and stop worrying. Sure, today it's not as good as a human, but for almost all the code out there, it gets the job done. There's no skill needed any more, and if the boss doesn't care about quality, I don't see why I should.
  - NateEag 2mo ago
    Your boss can get Claude to make unreadable, noisy, confusing code just as well as you can. There may not be a career left in software development with these monstrosities, but if there is, it's in using decades of experience to get the abominations to produce something other than unreadable dreck. If the code itself truly doesn't matter any more, programmers will no longer be paid.
    - a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
      Oh, yeah, the amount of skill needed for programming is quite low these days, the people paying just haven't figured it out quite yet. There's still some needed, but it's closer to line cook than nuclear physicist. But the managers won't do it, because you still need manual testing to make sure that the AI models got things right. Managers will want to hire someone to do the manual testing.
      - NateEag 1mo ago
        The amount of skill required is still pretty high, IMO - if we set a requirement that a programmer thoroughly understand what they're shipping. If we remove that requirement (as most around me seem to be doing), then yeah, not much skill required, but the system is going to steadily trend towards being a buggy, unmaintainable pile of sloppypasta. Maybe the models get good enough they can handle maintaining that, but anecdotal reports so far seem to indicate we aren't there yet. I guess we'll see if AI 2027 pans out.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
a34729t 2mo ago
Literally pissing in an ocean of piss.
- anon7725 2mo ago
  Analogy-wise, wouldn't it be adding a cup of water to an ocean of piss?
  - abustamam 2mo ago
    It'd be taking a cup of piss out of the ocean of piss i think!

Fighting the ocean is futile

trip-zip 2mo ago

So is completely eliminating litter, but I still pick it up when I pass it.

noisy_boy 2mo ago
Everybody generally agrees on what is garbage. Lot of senior management doesn't think AI is garbage or even if they privately think so, they don't say that openly. Falling in line, peer pressure, not wanting to come across as anti-AI luddite etc. All those issues affect the individual contributors too + the added challenge of perception in front of those who decide the bonus and lately, continued employment. In this fucked up job market, it is easier said than done.
- abustamam 2mo ago
  I feel like the chain kinda goes all the way to the top, to the level of shareholders. My boss needs to give his boss the perception that the engineering team is firing on all cylinders and has high velocity, so that he can sell that story to shareholders who could easily invest in another "AI-native" company and make more money because they're growing like crazy. I feel like it's all just perception and how companies can sell their stories to investors or potential acquirers, and everything else can be punted and dealt with later when we get acquired or when share prices are a zillion dollars etc. It's a race to the bottom, for sure.

delecti 2mo ago

It's not the ocean, it's the poster's own team. A simple "AI comments suck" in a sprint retro would be trivially easy and would at least start the conversation.

VohuMana 2mo ago
I think the biggest issue might not be the immediate team but upper leadership. Companies which have mandated AI usage override a lot of what an individual or individual team wants. If that’s the case then it would be a lot like fighting the ocean, especially if your immediate team sees having AI write docs as an easy way to move the needle on LT’s AI monitoring dashboard.
stronglikedan 2mo ago
Doesn't matter. You'll come off as the baddie. It's the foreseeable future. Best just to learn how to interpret AI generated shit, or learn how to run it through AI and have it translate it to a more concise format without all the buzzwords. It'll take getting used to, but it'll save your career.
- wpietri 2mo ago
  You don't have to come across as the baddie. There are plenty of neutral ways to start the conversation. E.g., "I notice that there's a lot more generated comments lately. How much are people finding those useful?" If you really want to save your career, learning how to have real conversations is a vital skill.
  - mannanj 2mo ago
    Have you worked in corporate recently or at a particularly toxic one? Asking because when I was at capital one, certain comments or questions about topics like this, would actually get you noticed negatively by your manager and being disruptive to what leadership wants hurts your career. In fact being the one to ask and point out questions like yours ultimately got me PIP'ed and removed from the company. So, like, yeah, being vulnerable and the first one to tell the truth is risky. That's why the bystander effect can happen and in politics or risky situations silence is a common response, and why we don't have more courageous people doing the right thing - because the risk is higher on the person speaking up and the rewards aren't disproportionately in their favor (but are evenly distributed though, so its not favorable for you as I learned from a game theory perspective to voice up / defend certain stances).
    - annzabelle 2mo ago
      Capital One is a particularly toxic work environment, and I'm not sure that your experiences there apply to other companies. I started my first post-Capital One job a few months ago, and I'm still not used to the fact that this company expects everybody working here to still be working here in two years. Most employers are not going through everybody with a fine tooth comb every 6 months hunting for any hint of an excuse to PIP them.
swat535 2mo ago
You're going to have convince upper management why the team's velocity is suddenly affected in feature releases once they stop using AI. All the execs know that they can refresh the screen faster and see the features for marketing and sales. When has engineering ever had a voice anyway? The bean counters have been looking to cut us out since the inception of our industry.
- delecti 2mo ago
  > My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments That's the behavior being discussed. In my experience, overly large PRs are a detriment to productivity, so if anything my suggestion (asking one's coworkers to stop that) might lead to an improvement in velocity. If I have to read an essay before and throughout every PR, I'm not going to be able to review that very quickly.
wavemode 2mo ago
While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it is very similar to whenever anyone complains about things where they work. "Well, why don't you just raise it with management?" You're assuming that management 1) Understands the problem ("what are comments?") 2) Accepts that it is a problem ("how can more comments be a bad thing?") 3) Cares enough to solve the problem ("is this issue really a priority to solve right now? just accept the PR and we'll go back and fix if needed some other time cough never cough") 4) Believes you (this can take many forms, but the most common is, subconsciously, "this other engineer says it's not a problem, so I'll just assume it's not since that's easier") All of these logistical, political and social factors are "the ocean"
- delecti 2mo ago
  Sprint retro is with your own team. And disagreement isn't a problem, at least then there would be the potential to come to a common understanding between the GP comment and their coworkers.
- Perepiska 2mo ago
  I usually require to file an issue in bug tracker about problem in #3 and then follow all its updates to prevent silent closing by management. It won't help but annoys management a lot and they afraid to get more backlog issues of such sort from me in the future.
- tripledry 2mo ago
  Seems to me if technical decisions on the level of "no more AI comments" go through management the organization doesn't know what they are doing. To be fair, I would not be surprised.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
It's the management desired direction, if the place is anything like my workplace. Everyone is all in on AI, and if you're not using it for everything possible, you're on the chopping block. And, really, it works. You can copy and paste between tickets and Claude, and then do manual testing. Then you tell Claude to self-review for clarity and minimalism, and stop worrying. Sure, today it's not as good as a human, but for almost all the code out there, it gets the job done. There's no skill needed any more, and if the boss doesn't care about quality, I don't see why I should.
- NateEag 2mo ago
  Your boss can get Claude to make unreadable, noisy, confusing code just as well as you can. There may not be a career left in software development with these monstrosities, but if there is, it's in using decades of experience to get the abominations to produce something other than unreadable dreck. If the code itself truly doesn't matter any more, programmers will no longer be paid.
  - a2ff6eeb0 2mo ago
    Oh, yeah, the amount of skill needed for programming is quite low these days, the people paying just haven't figured it out quite yet. There's still some needed, but it's closer to line cook than nuclear physicist. But the managers won't do it, because you still need manual testing to make sure that the AI models got things right. Managers will want to hire someone to do the manual testing.
    - NateEag 1mo ago
      The amount of skill required is still pretty high, IMO - if we set a requirement that a programmer thoroughly understand what they're shipping. If we remove that requirement (as most around me seem to be doing), then yeah, not much skill required, but the system is going to steadily trend towards being a buggy, unmaintainable pile of sloppypasta. Maybe the models get good enough they can handle maintaining that, but anecdotal reports so far seem to indicate we aren't there yet. I guess we'll see if AI 2027 pans out.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

a34729t 2mo ago

Literally pissing in an ocean of piss.

anon7725 2mo ago
Analogy-wise, wouldn't it be adding a cup of water to an ocean of piss?
- abustamam 2mo ago
  It'd be taking a cup of piss out of the ocean of piss i think!