The bubble can't pop soon enough.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/glitterati
> people who are famous, wealthy
Oh, okay...
> and attractive
lost me
I'm getting months of work done in weekends.
There is no bubble.
The entire development world is being fundamentally rewired and will not ever look the same. This is just one experiment at a new shape. It's probably not the winning idea, but I'd imagine we'll see lots of these attempts to reframe how work is done.
This looks to me to be more oriented around agents and training than it says on the tin. It puts all the artifacts for learning about how projects are built, orchestrated, and managed in one place. That's a great data loop. Hook in observability, monitoring and alerting, incident management and SRE and they'll be cooking.
I have no doubt someone out there somewhere will follow up on exactly what you've suggested.
Elaborate? Legitimately curious
That said, turning a tool into a profitable business is another story entirely; if one person can turn an idea into working software with the help of AI, dozens more can too. So I'm also curious, not just from idea to software, but from software to business and millions of income.
For starters not many people need story boarding.
When someone is actually doing a project that is big enough to need story boarding, they are going to have some infrastructure and making a wrapper around prompting image generation is not going to be far fetched.
The narrow window of productions that are doing story boarding but think they need a tool to wrap image generation and have no one to script some tools themselves is pretty small.
I am not ready for a new hype cycle based on whatever the imagineers come up with next.
Cringebot: :salute: on it!
This shit is infesting every online discussion forum I'm in.
__________
> McKellen said: "I felt pretty miserable … and thought perhaps, has the time come for me to stop acting altogether if I can't cope with these difficulties?" [...]
> "It was so distressing and off-putting and difficult that I thought 'I don't want to make this film if this is what I'm going to have to do'," McKellen added. "It's not what I do for a living. I act with other people, I don't act on my own."
-- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gand...
I want to reduce accidental complexity, discover and understand real problems, solve them well, and leave the world somehow better for it. Not just some infinitely process ping-pong of a hallucinated digital dollhouse fifteen levels removed from objective reality.
I don't see anything about 'nailing' the physics either. It's just a design instruction.
Now that we have that, everybody hates it.
Except me. I still like this. There might still be room for improvement, yes, but I think this is a cool attempt to making AI agents part of the team.
I think what could help make this better is investing into giving agents actual personality, instead of them being just sycophantic clones of each other. AI agents as team members should have clear aspects of distinction both in their abilities and behaviors.
The current generation of LLM takes a lot of resources to make, so of course it was made and pushed by the worst offender of late-stage capitalism. Giving an air of mercantilism, corporatism and general greed and unfairness already oh so common in our time. It's hard to see Claude as a cool entity and not exclusively made for profit, with all that entails. It's also (partly via the training data, partly via the proprietary system prompt and other safety mechanism) give the output a god awful personality. Sycophant, safe, easy language, no personality. And I have given up on trying tweaks to not have them sound like an incredible gigantic corporate-safe-speech dork.
Then there is all the limitation of LLM. We keep calling the current tech "AI", but they are as close to my own definition of AI than randomize decision tree npc where in early 2010 games. They can't do logic. They are a random number generator that are just insanely good at giving you the number that you want (which, I should emphasis, is absolutely crazy). Some techniques help with that, but the tech is fundamentally limited, which often make them frustrating.
Well, you definitely have the absolute worst definition and least understanding of what an llm is of anyone I've ever met, that's interesting.
(Yes yes, we can't know whether it "feels like" something to exist as bursts of vast numbers of matrix multiplications, but at least it would be a rather strange existence.)
The problem isn't the team member being artificial or not, it's the obvious fakery of the personalities that is the problem, and that's entirely independent from the artificiality of the team member.
One of my junior developers started the same day I did; we went through on boarding together. He's in his mid 20s, this is his second job post-college, after having an abysmal experience entering the workforce during COVID. He's had some struggles with learning to code but has taken my advice to build side projects for things he is interested in and has really started to take off. He got married last year and just last week bought a house.
One of my developers was a brand new junior, having started her first job post-college just a few months before I started at the company. When I first met her, she apologized to me. She hadn't done anything, she was just that kind of mousy person whose obviously been ground down by everyone around her for her entire life. I started making her deliver our project status updates. I also give her full projects that she works on her own with no input from me, other than whatever advice she herself asks of me. She finished her master's degree in computer science last year and also recently bought a house.
One of my more recent developers came to us from after 10 years of working on-site on military bases. She'd been stuck in a corner, made to maintain large legacy projects on her own, over looked for promotion her entire career. She's one of the best project managers I've ever seen. I have her deliver all of our presentations to the C-suite (and there are a lot of them). She just got engaged and I recently got her promoted for the first time in her career.
One of my former developers came to me from a different part of the company. He came to the company after being a medic on active duty in Afghanistan. His former team couldn't figure out what to do with him and when the contract on which he was working expired, they didn't bother to find a new one for him. He had told his supervisor he wanted to be a programmer, not an analyst, and somehow his supervisor knew I was looking for people. He was an absolutely terrible programmer. I spent multiple sessions a week working on mentoring him. Ultimately, I suggested he find another company and helped him find one that I thought would fit him better, something smaller, not in consulting, that could have more time to work directly with him, and kept him busy with documentation tasks until he could transition with no down time. He still sends me updates on LinkedIn. He also bought a house and is getting married soon. He loves his new job, misses our team, but says he's learning a lot more now.
Our company is one of the worst places to work as a software developer I've ever seen. Not quite the worst in that nobody is yelling at us or threatening us with violence, but our management has absolutely zero understanding of the business of software development. It's incompetent-bad, not evil-bad. The actual projects are ludicrously bad with no direction. My boss listens to me in our one-on-ones with bewildered eyes as I describe the cacophony of dumb ideas from our C-suite stakeholders, folks he has no involvement with because my team is matrixed out to internal work. He mostly just lets me do whatever I want as long as the timesheets get signed on time. I love working here. I also recently bought a house, my first one in my life. Oh yeah, we live in Northern Virginia, BTW, houses ain't cheap here. But I love working here despite all the product idiocy because I don't see my job as building software, I see it as building software developers.
Fuck calling a computer program a "teammate." A computer program is not going to have a brilliant and beautiful life. We only do any of this shit because it's in the service of people.
Where does the money come from that was used for those houses? From you? Oh, that's great, then keep handing out housefuls of money to people in your life that you appreciate. What? It was from someone else? Why did that someone else hand over that money? Because of "service of people"? Did they say so?
> Now that we have that, everybody hates it.
There are several reasons for it, most of them having to do with looking beyond what’s right in front of your nose. For many people, we don’t “have that”, LLMs are not comparable to interactions with humans. Then there’s all the shit around it such as the further consolidation of power in the hands of a few who really shouldn’t have it, the destruction of livelihoods, the increase in disinformation and propaganda, unhealthy habits and depression, and on and on.
Too many of these conversations focus only on the technology and completely ignore the context in which it exists. That lack of human perspective is a major reason why Hacker News is made fun of and dismissed relentlessly on other places on the internet (called “the orange site”), and everyone here is (wrongly) lumped as being a bunch of out-of-touch selfish nerds.
A language interface doesn't need a personality any more than a visual interface does. For most professional work, source data isn't written in the first person. Ego is an imposed product feature that wastes energy. What would the purpose of diverse personalities be? I want models as tools, not friends.
To me, it seems like a loud online minority, and it's mostly entangled with politics or job security.
Most good programmers I know are using it effectively and like it.
The anthropomorophization and cutesiness of this example really sucks to me. I want my AI to be a cold and emotionless tool for making an income in a dying miserable world.
I wouldn't underestimate whimsy as a way to make fundamentally strange things feel intuitive. Bots are managed by people or orgs and can have different capabilities and authorization, so names and images are convenient shorthand for humans to distinguish these instances from one another. Whether or not you make them cutesy is entirely up to you.
I'm trying to imagine a world in which this makes sense as a way to organize software development work, but coming up short. It's on a blockchain or something though, so there ya go.
https://github.com/block/buzz/blob/main/docs/assets/screensh...