Exactly, also it lacks a lot of context as to why they did that.
Possible (probable?) scenario:
- Marketing: "we found and fixed lots of bugs thanks to AI"
- Reality: the KPI is now to fix as many bugs as possible with the help of AI, so they used AI to search old and easy bugs in the backlog, and then fixed it manually
Huh? Maybe a third scenario is that AI helped fix the bugs? Like described in the actual post you are replying to? This level of conspiracy theory is getting a bit ridiculous.
I think you’re right, my base assumption is that the models can code and can fix bugs, and can code more in parallel and faster than humans at a lower cost.
If Google are tackling lower value bugs with AI the number is in a way inflated compared to some utility measure (fixing a smaller number of worse bugs could be preferable) but it’s still things fixed.
There's no reasoning with the folks who are anti-ai and claim LLM's cannot produce anything worthwhile. They are basically flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers at this point. There is literally no amount of evidence that will convince them. They will always say that LLMs cannot produce anything but garbage just like the anti-vaxxers who state vaccines just cause autism. They are both fucking morons who no one with any grip on reality should indulge.
Same here. It's such a shame because I always wanted to invest in SpaceX (even despite it's CEO), but now most of the money would go to AI stuff rather than space exploration, so I'm out.
A little bit more time and people might finally understand why we have formal deterministic languages, and we'll be back full circle to proper programming.
I'm working on assembling a full-stack framework/template that aims at building performant and quality web apps very quickly.
It's going to be 100% statically type-safe across the stack, SQL first for the DB layer(s), and with a minimal amount of boilerplate (just enough for a clean architecture without magic).
> Daube is a slang word for something of low quality.
Which is fun because it's also a really delicious dish from Provence (south of France) made with beef that has been marinated for multiple hours in red wine.
The "vibe thinking" trend where people stop using their brain and rely on whatever random output the LLM tells them is harder to diagnose, but it's certainly there and at least as bad as vibe coding.
What about the “vibe thinking” trend where people project their own narratives on to every situation, even if the information available shows that it’s a rise in large scale DDoS attacks?
Thanks for the insights. I have been in technical leadership positions in the past, but disliked the management part. I think that the other dilemma is that I don't like big companies, as I've only had negative experiences and I get frustrated because even the most tiny thing can take forever to be done.
> it’s very likely you haven’t mastered all layers of the stack - you maybe have mastered the parts you’ve come across though.
I was meaning that in the context of web dev. There are certainly other areas I don't know much yet.
> Would you include Linux kernel development, program proofs, HPC , math-oriented software, compilers, firmwares, fpgas, database internals ( I mean, writing a full database engine ), big iron infrastructure , actual research etc in the list of things you’ve mastered?
Definitely not (except partially a database engine), but I'd definitely like to move down the stack. I like systems programming, low level stuff and optimization problems, so that's maybe the main area that I should explore (and also one of the reasons I like game dev). Translating that into an actual job might be harder thought.
What you say makes total sense. But for some personal reasons the social part of the job has always been my weak side and I'm just not interested in playing that game.
I've had fairly positive successes in the past when being a contractor. I feel like it's easier for me to have legitimacy and influence over the project that I'm doing this way.
> Lastly, make sure whatever it is you work on truly matters to the business, and understand how it ties back to the business and your customers. It can be fun (or necessary at times) to be off in the weeds on something that is technically interesting, but really unimportant to the bottom line and ultimately to advancing your career.
That's something I have also learnt from experience, and I am more often than not the one pushing for boring tech against the last fancy trends. But I have difficulties with the fact that focusing on the business means most of the time being the fastest possible, to the point that businesses would rather save 2 hours of implementation time now, even if it costs weeks of technical debt down the road.
I can try to expand on this a bit, and respond to your thoughts.
> What you say makes total sense. But for some personal reasons the social part of the job has always been my weak side and I'm just not interested in playing that game.
I don't mean to imply playing politics or empire building. I've probably capped my career in some ways by not playing into that either. However, in roles I've had, I've built up good capital by being very helpful, jumping into incidents, etc. There are ways to build that social muscle without it being negative or selfish.
> That's something I have also learnt from experience, and I am more often than not the one pushing for boring tech against the last fancy trends.
I think this is valuable, and it has worked for me as well. Though the eternal struggle of taking on debt for speed is fundamental. By building up some of the social capital and trust, I think it makes navigating these discussions easier and being able to negotiate in time for projects to do things right. That's the only way I've found this piece to be successful.
