When I hit a problem like that, I do most myself and just get the AI to do the bits where I'd normally get stuck because of boredom. Bits that I can't be bothered to write as they're easy but laborious.
And then get it to review the code, where it'll pickup a few edge cases.
But I don't really get the attitude that we shouldn't write code anymore, for me it's often quicker to write the code than to explain to the AI how to write it.
Sometimes when I'm.sitting there watching it chug away for 5 minutes over what should be a three line change, I'll just stop it and do it myself, and then at that point I'll often take over completely for a while.
This is sort of my approach as well, but is your team on the same page as you? or are they far more AI-pilled? everyone around me is much more AI-pilled so this mismatch in approach to AI is making it hard to collaborate
As 80% of enterprise software is CRUD with a bit of sprinkling of user authorization and tenant customisation. But subtly different for every business domain. It's mainly what properties the models and validations have that are different.
When you add a new module or whatever most of the code you have to write is rote code.
And sonnet can handle that crap just fine, you just point it at a similar example in the code, it picks up your userContext convention, how you're doing i18n, etc. and you're done.
I like saying that enterprise code is often shallow but wide. I must have written at least 4 purchase order systems in my career that are all completely different but almost exactly the same.
Sorry to call bullshit but I think that’s exactly what this statement is.
Just looking at our wardrobe and thinking about how it’s actually not one thing at all, but made up of dozens of different SKUs, and how I could reorder any of them individually if I needed. There are also third party sellers of parts such as runners, door rails, and the like (not that you need them since these can all be purchased from IKEA anyway).
The challenge with IKEA is colours: they used to offer more colours, but now lots of stuff is black white, grey, or beige with no other options (and sometimes white is the only option). If you need to replace a part in a colour other than that nowadays, you’ll perhaps find it difficult to impossible.
Depends on the specific piece of furniture, and how well you treat it. I have had quite mixed experience. Its not going to last like expensive stuff, but its generally far from the worst.
If you look at the 90s + 00s, everything was moving towards unified systems, things like small talk, winforms, spring, asp.net, etc. were moving everything into the IDE, you used one language, one framework, one build system. Then people started adding javascript, but even that was getting semi-unified as people coalesced on jQuery, jQueryUI, etc.
Then something happened in the late 00s/10s, and suddenly we had SPAs and noSQL, then microservices, then k8s and now we're here, in what is a mish-mash of 10/20 different systems with 10/20 different attack surfaces.
As my own off-the-cuff guess of what happened, I think perhaps people tried to apply the Unix philosophy, but without a central committee keeping everything aligned it's really not worked.
Serving an interactive page that stores data over sessions should be a trivial solved problem at this point, and instead we've somehow made it where often the scaffold is vastly more complicated than the actual business logic.
Money. SaaS as a model allowed the service provider to take 100% control over the product and how it may or may not be used. Everything else is downstream from that.
FLOSS killed market for end-device software. Cloud+SaaS neutered FLOSS (the code is running literally out of your reach, so may as well be open and free, for any good that'll do you).
And this does actually connect to the security discussion, because despite the apparent belief that "security" is an unqualified good, it is actually just a mechanism of control, and whether or not it is good for you, depends on who is doing the protecting, and who are they protecting from. Very often these days, that threat actor is you.
Perhaps it would be helpful in these discussions if people mentally swapped "cybersecurity" for "police" or "military" or "humor of bureaucrats with power over you" - then it would be more obvious just how important it is to distinguish when you're being secured vs. you're being secured from, vs. accidentally finding yourself in the gears of the security aparattus.
50-60 lines? You must have tiny text size, on mine, with VS Code, I can see 40 lines. As you get past 30 and your eyesight starts changing, you need to up it. By 45 you need it quite a bit bigger than you used to have it. In the mid-2000s there used to be a lot of articles reminding the mainly young developers that 11-12px font size was unreadable to anyone past 40.
On top of that, the default place for a console in VS Code is at the bottom, now I'm down to 25-30 lines if I have that open.
And then there's heavier IDEs like IntelliJ, Visual studio, etc.
They might have two or three tab lines at the top, a row used for class navigation (that I've just realized I've never, ever used), an extra row or two of quick action bars, a row of extra tabs at the bottom for navigating between consoles/call stacks/locals/error lists, 2 info bar rows at the bottom, and sometimes two or even three scroll bars stacked on top of each other.
All of a sudden you're down from 30 lines visible to 17, which is my actual visible lines of code when I have debugging running.
Humans are drawing pelicans riding bicycles now. Just google it and you will find 5 or 10 of them in the first few results. Including a t-shirt design.
What does this even test for? Can I use LLMs to directly generate machine code to replace my compiler? Or maybe I can use LLMs as a bare metal OS / scheduler to replace my machine's operating system and scheduler? It makes zero sense to test for that.
Not only that this so-called "benchmark" isn't economically useful, but that it tests for the sake of testing; and for attention.
To end this obsession with generating SVG pelicans, Quiver AI's [0] model is actually designed to generate SVGs from prompts and has done so for years.
So there is no need to continue with this un-serious pseudoscientific "benchmark".
So if we test models that only output text to directly generate waveforms of sound from text or binary code, or directly generating binary code to replace a compiler, does that mean it is "intelligent"?
Does that even test for intelligence?
This is like testing if a horse can fly just because someone showed an image of a Pegasus, or testing if a fish can climb up a tree and believing they are not intelligent because each of them cannot fly or climb up trees.
I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we are testing a model that can create images to create an image for us. If it can't even do that well then I'm not sure why we need to talk about horses here.
Pulling things into the ridiculous isn't condusive to a good faith discussion and does not help proving pseudoscientificness which you seem to be after. (I don't belive that the pelican bicycle test is meant to be a serious scientific endeavour, btw.)
> I'm not sure where you are coming from, but we are testing a model that can create images to create an image for us.
Then use a model that supports multi-modal output then, instead of using models that only support raw text output to construct an image.
> If it can't even do that well then I'm not sure why we need to talk about horses here.
Testing a model that only outputs text and forcing it to output an unsupported modality is obviously not going to work well which is what it going on here.
Would you expect Claude/GPT to replace your compiler because it can output text? That would be like expecting that horses can fly because someone saw an ancient winged-horse on a brick tablet.
> Pulling things into the ridiculous isn't condusive to a good faith discussion and does not help proving pseudoscientificness which you seem to be after.
That is because the premise of the test is ridiculous and pseudoscientific.
> (I don't belive that the pelican bicycle test is meant to be a serious scientific endeavour, btw.)
Why did you say it was a "test for intelligence", when we both know it is a joke that tests for nothing?
One way to characterize intelligence is the capability of solving problems one has not specifically been trained for.
Somebody who has trained painting animals and vehicles for decades is surely skilled at that, but is not solving new problems, so is not necessarily applying intelligence when painting something of that sort.
You can take a reasonably skilled programmer, show them some C code and ask them to write equivalent ASM code, perhaps providing them with a language reference for either, and they will be able to do this translation. Slowly, but they will get there. They have not been trained to do this, but they will "figure it out". With enough time and motivation, even non-programmers would be able to do that. That is what intelligence is and of course Claude/GPT needs to be able to do that if it wants to claim that it intelligent. No flying horses.
He's now (famously) said that the only thing he ever actually used GasTown for was to code on GasTown.
reply