News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by vbezhenar on Thursday March 19, 2026 @07:42AM (#47437729)
This is not correct. They can say "sorry" which makes them as accountable as ordinary developer.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by bluefirebrand on Thursday March 19, 2026 @08:15AM (#47438033)
That's not what accountability is
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by pixl97 on Thursday March 19, 2026 @11:41AM (#47441328)
Accountability: "Something that SWE's run screaming from".

Example: "We should have professional accountability in software"

SWE: "This would bring about the end of the world!!!1!"

Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by bigfishrunning on Thursday March 19, 2026 @12:09PM (#47441748)
The economics of software development have lowered the bar for software engineers: there simply aren't enough people who are good at it (or even want to be), and the salaries are very high, so plenty of people who shouldn't be SWE's are.

I am a software engineer, and I would absolutely love to see more professional accountability in this field. Unfortunately, it would make the cost of software go up significantly (because many many people writing software would be ejected from the industry)

Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by interstice on Thursday March 19, 2026 @07:48AM (#47437772)
I've found recent versions of Claude and codex to be reluctant in this regard. They will recognise the problem they created a few minutes ago but often behave as if someone else did it. In many ways that's true though, I suppose.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by bee_rider on Thursday March 19, 2026 @09:21AM (#47438971)
Does it do this for really cut and dry problems? I’ve noticed that ChatGPT will put a lot of effort into (retroactively) “discovering” a basically-valid alternative interpretation of something it said previously, if you object on good grounds. Like it’s trying to evade admitting that it made a mistake, but also find some say to satisfy your objection. Fair enough, if slightly annoying.

But I have also caught it on straightforward matters of fact and it’ll apologize. Sometimes in an over the top fashion…

Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by datsci_est_2015 on Thursday March 19, 2026 @11:17AM (#47440939)
LLM based solutions don’t need to stay dry and warm at night, with a full belly, possibly with their sexual partner with whom they have a drive to procreate.
Re:A sufficiently detailed spec is code by bigfishrunning on Thursday March 19, 2026 @12:07PM (#47441718)
Ordinary developers get fired for poor performance *all the time*.