I'm pushing the need for basic engineering principles across whole organisations.

You wouldn't give an engineer 1000 lines of code to review without the original spec of what you're trying to achieve for context (at a minimum, ideally the reviewer was in the room when the work was introduced, and has full context).

So, these docs, they're given as an all or nothing.

Do you push back on the 39th metric that is defined to the utmost detail? Or just resign yourself to the fact that it is what it is?

A one (6 is the goto if we're talking Amazon?!) pager.. "this is what I am proposing" at least gives the skeleton of the idea to push back at the general shape of the idea, refine it, before all the emotional investment of your precious report being complete.

Y'know.. the traditional product running through the spec in a SCRUM* environment.. the engineers doing proper code reviews..

* Yes SCRUM is dead, but that's another thing.

Not fully baked, worse: made to sound confidently correct, orthogonally its actual correctness.

This was already proof that, when a company is given the chance of getting a reward now and putting in the effort later, they will take the reward and postpone the effort indefinitely.

AI now offers "generate now, review later". Fill in the pattern.

We're cooked and it's not due to AI, it's due to the fundamentals of an economy and society that only sees the short term.

You mean the people they fired and demoralized?

One of the things that "great [wo]men" like about "vibe-coding" (and that includes blindly producing non-code product), is that they, and they alone can now do what used to require the painful process of "passing it to context experts."

Now, the LLM is a "built-in context expert," and they don't need to vet the output anymore.

Serious orgs are going to have to figure out the human layer. It will be needed, no matter how 'hallucination-free' the AI tooling gets. AI will still have some spectacularly bad fuck ups or even worse time bombs that get embedded in a system and don't become apparent until months or years later.

A lot of this will be dumped on existing staff with predictable results as they don't have the bandwidth to do it right. I can envision "output compliance" or "AI QA" becoming dedicated positions at many orgs. It's clearly needed.

Once the hallucination rate drops below error rate of human workers, it won't be needed anymore.

The problem is that output sometimes take longer to verify than to create in the first place.

That turns AI into a deeply negative ROI system for many applications.

With AI, I have to read through everything, often explain why it's wrong, and then rewrite everything anyways. I mean, I get way more billables, but I think it's symptomatic of how AI loses its advantage of being quick and accessible to those who don't understand the subject matter.

I do the second approach for coding with smallish steps and the output is fine

I can't imagine using them for a court filing. Those are either so short that they're trivial or they require painstaking research, precision, and often citations for every single sentence.

I can’t cite “from scratch” for something outside of my knowledge but I side LLM training or assisted search.

Of course, it's pretty much impossible to hear a dissenting point of view today and everyone is going crazy on these drugs. I might be hilariously wrong but I think this is the best time to start a software company.

I think its the perfect time to be contrarian - think about it. If youre wrong - So what? The world will have changed for everyone in the field. If you are right? You stand to be positioned to win big financially whilst everyone elses brain is rotting away.

And making a ton of corrections to a document everyone was hoping was ready to go is never fun politically.

In my experience the most effective work pattern for me is using agents to perform research and feedback on high level design, then I write the code manually, then I ask the agent to review the code for potential bugs/issues and fix those. The agents have a much easier time making small changes once the design is 90% there without going fully off the rails and generating slop.

I am working on writing skills to make the agent better but it is a bit painstaking. For example I had to write this inside of a skill because sometimes the agent would just stub out methods and leave TODOs: “always fully complete the requested task before finishing edits unless input is needed”.

It wasted many people's time, probably an order of magnitude of time wasted (and money) than if the initial person put a modicum of effort into making it right in the first place. Instead they hand it off to their life partner claude and just assume its good enough.

It's to the point where I am feeling insulted when I get ai slop like this from people. If I am expected to perform at a high level then I expect that at the very minimum the slop throwers will proof read their slop.

When our product managers just send us AI generated JIRA tickets that are extremely long but contain no actual details and tons of irrelevant or wrong content I get extremely frustrated and are seen as not a team player. At that point I’d rather not have the product managers present in the process.

I find that if Gemini Pro agrees with Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on something, it's almost certainly correct at a level where I wouldn't be likely to catch any errors myself.

Update your priors: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

"AI Hallucination Cases" - https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

This is my issue with AI.

In the type of work i do the work needs to be precise down to the context of how individual words are used.

Having AI pump out 20 pages of content but then me having to go through the 20 pages word by word, cross checking references and prior statements is going to take a long time.

Not to mention I didn’t write it, so my brain doesn’t already know what’s been written so it takes several passes to confirm its complete and that it all fits together.

I find it easy to just write it myself use AI for the more menial tasks like logic check, completeness checks, etc.

One task AI was very useful in was where we wanted to understand the gaps in a submission relative to a process requirement document. We didn’t care if the output was 100% complete or perfect, we just wanted a few examples.

Being able to input a couple 300 pages documents and have AI spit out a dozen examples in 30 seconds was a huge time saver.

But that was a non-critical task.

Yeah probably not for the same reason I left VFX rather than have a lifetime of completely disregarding my own generative creativity and cleaning up LLM-generated bullshit. Fuck that. Double-fuck creating ‘content’ to train the models.

In code, LLMs automate away a lot of the drudgery. In most other jobs, they automate away the only fun part and leave humans with all of the drudgery.

The tech industry has always been arrogant to some extent, but assuming the world of talented professional knowledge workers and creatives would be content to professionally proofread, apply lipstick to pigs, and polish turds is a whole new level of out-of-touch. I’d rather live out of my car and dig through the garbage for bottles with deposits.

I don't know about "most other jobs", I feel like this applies strongly to software too. AI is being used to automate the fun stuff

You may view writing code as drudgery, I like doing it

I loved solving problems with code but I don’t think it’s controversial to say most people enjoy the novel problems much much more than pulling apart an obtusely designed, non-idiomatic API. The AI is better at the details than the novel problem, so whoever is driving still needs to sort that out. In art, writing, and so-on, it only does the interesting part, but it does it poorly. So for professional use cases, it involves a lot of tedious cleanup of other people’s art that a machine (very economically) amalgamated into a pile of shit, and you’ve no opportunity to do anything interesting. At all.

Why?

So if they're having humans proofread what the AI produces, they must have found that to be necessary.

I think a lot of the time it's just pure laziness. AI gives people a magical "do all the work for me" button and it can bring out the worst in them.

Some people are given the button and really do not care.

This is an interesting topic. We treat vetting output the same as doing the work ourselves, but that is not the case.

Doing the work is not the same as reviewing work done by others.

I have heard reports of software engineering companies that have gone full agentic. Their seniors only review stuff written by LLMs and it burns them out, because they have to switch context constantly.

I find this interesting because part of being a senior developer is that you are experienced enough that you won‘t make grave mistakes anymore. This is the case in many professions: you are relied upon to not make grave mistakes.

But those same people are now swamped with stuff that they are not able to review, so they will let a grave mistake slip through at some point.

So they really can‘t trust themselves anymore?

I am particularly interested in Education and Human Knowledge Management. I have seen the rate of IT training going to zero. Think about specialized training, where if you make a mistake, the consequence of your errors, are talked about on the tv news of the evening.

The whole idea everybody is just planning to save their butt, using these strings coming out of these numeric matrices, while suspending judgement, just shudders me in horror. A bit like those South Asia Airline companies, that were forbidding their pilots from landing airplanes with manual piloting, leading to an increase loss of skills causing some well known disasters...

If well paid consultants cant even bother to check their links...

Software and news are apples and oranges. The software engineer looks at AI code to spots errors and make/suggest corrections. But the software still exists. A doctor vetting a news article ("Owning a Boat Causes Cancer") isn't there to tweak language. The doctor's job is to stop the entire article. It would be like the amazon engineer deleting all the source code and telling the dev team to abandon the project. That will never be a popular task.

So in order to make it pan out the forces at play are trying to make everyone believe we now have to accept wrong, even dangerous results.