I think there should be honesty about what "Doing" some of these things means. Outsourcing is "doing" IFF you regard the end product as the sole meaningful or significant part of a given goal or process.
"Have your digital slave do it for you" is not really doing it if doing something and difficulty refers to your own action, and there's a gradient between that extreme and manually grinding rocks to make silicone wafers. I did not just refactor a bit of code, something did it for me. I cannot take ownership for something I didn't actually sodding do, no amount of semantic dishonesty changes this.
Ultimately I am not going to listen to someone who has """""done""""'" a hiphop cover of their history test if they put it into some software that automated 80+% of it from lyric to beat, and their decision-making amounts to 'fuck it that will do'. I'll absolutely listen to someone who has given it a real crack through means convenient and not, if it seems like they give a crap.
It still makes me laugh when i see "prompt engineering". I open articles posted on here that contain many diagrams and novel jargon, all for it to amount to using a fucking markdown file with some text in it.
The problem is my friend you're right but people who tend to browse this website are no longer engineers who would also understand this; it's mostly HR, Managerial staff, and jaded engineers who never enjoyed implementation details, and who are presently trying to convince everyone else implementation details are no longer of relevance.
I see this being thrown sometimes, but, honestly, it feels like a "HN is becoming reddit" situation. Would be interesting to see a study or a review of recent comments to confirm if that's really true.
The community portion that unironically think AI is good enough now, are mostly managers and non/semi-technical people, and engineers who do not engage in critical or complex problems. HN has always been too much of the velocity-alignment-synergy class of professional talkers; it's just so much more obvious now that they feel emboldened in false confidence.
I've been paying attention to that line of division and came to the same conclusion. We're seeing the "tiers" diverge as AI becomes more capable. As the saying goes, you don't know what you don't know.
Ah yes, the good old No True Scotsman fallacy, where we smugly proclaim that anyone who thinks AI is good now must be working on unimportant and easy things.
There's some of that, but more often it's developers whose arguments are a year behind the frontier models or, just as common, they're dramatically overstating their abilities.
It's an inherent tension that every discipline has to wrestle with. The most experienced developers are in the best position to evaluate where LLMs are, but those who are the loudest about their own abilities generally aren't in this camp. Humility tends to come with experience, and arrogance tends to come with inexperience.
It's just cope. I'm so close to just never coming back to HN because the quality of thought has just gone through the floor. Anything whatsoever to hedge one's way to fellating a phallusless chatbot
Incredibly impressive how, the moment AI becomes the topic of conversation, trivial things such as speaking in relative terms become incredibly difficult for the more addled of the prompting users.
Why must so much gumflapping involve the spew of any words but those which encourage not using the clear problem tool more.
"the question becomes how teams will manage cognitive debt" the question is why it is allowed to occur when it is avoidable. Farcical nonsense. Write the code yourself or be silent.
Why is it always so consistently a comparison to a technology of a fundamentally different order? Perhaps what has been lost is the ability to recognise distinct and incommensurable categories.
You aren't thinking myopically; it's a fundamental contradiction the root of which is in how human brains take in and understand new information. No amount of pontification or bollocks hedging as this and all other "thinkpieces" on this issue do, will change that. It is beyond preference and perspective. There is only doing the very task that produces skills pertaining to that task. Prompting alone or even in dominant is too far from this task. They can only write the code.
"Have your digital slave do it for you" is not really doing it if doing something and difficulty refers to your own action, and there's a gradient between that extreme and manually grinding rocks to make silicone wafers. I did not just refactor a bit of code, something did it for me. I cannot take ownership for something I didn't actually sodding do, no amount of semantic dishonesty changes this.
Ultimately I am not going to listen to someone who has """""done""""'" a hiphop cover of their history test if they put it into some software that automated 80+% of it from lyric to beat, and their decision-making amounts to 'fuck it that will do'. I'll absolutely listen to someone who has given it a real crack through means convenient and not, if it seems like they give a crap.
reply