discreteevent
This is true. The world will go on. But your business will lose more money than it gained by not paying attention to the code. It will lose money because it will have to compensate customers or lose customers. That's how the world maintains it's robustness.
You can but in practice nobody does this because they don't have time. For example, once you have investigated ideas from a crank a couple of times - you don't do it again. Life is too short.
> I know. Doesn't change the fact he said it and went viral on social media
These are post-truth comments. You don't care about how things really work, you just care about winning over the other post-truth incompetent. It doesn't matter if you are right or left, this stuff is what is sinking the world.
If you've got a test suite that's twice the size of the code base then those tests are almost certainly tied to implementation details and will make the code a lot less like clay.
But there are so many people who make statements like his that maybe we should assume that some of them are not idiots or bots. If he's not an idiot it means that he's working in an environment where that kind of statement is paying off. So it could be, for example, that he doesn't really have profitable customers. His main 'customers' are investors who are clueless, or who know that they are clueless but don't care because they are going to move it on to a greater fool anyway. Or that because there aren't any customers, the only thing they can measure is 'productivity' in terms of 'number of unused, unprofitable and unsustainable features'
Hey, account created 39 days ago. Did you really have to tag that on after all the other stuff? Could you make it any more obvious?
That said this thread is hilarious because it's just an open ai sales manual debating with an anthropic sales manual. It's funny, but it's not, because the truth is that you people are just shitting all over the commons. Someone needs to kick you out but that's not going to happen here.
That's like saying if 99% of birds don't have huge colorful tails that makes peacocks very valuable. In each case it may or may not be true but you are just correlating. (i.e. It's possible that intelligence just isn't as valuable as 'intelligent' people think it is)
Your assumption here is that the other parts of the process are intelligence. In the real world they usually are not e.g. raw materials, politics, zoning, manual labor, clinical trials, traffic, energy ... And usually those things are such huge bottlenecks that Amdahl's Law renders the speed of delivery of the intelligence part irrelavant.
They got into math for the love for mathematics but if they couldn't make a living from it (tenure) then they would have done something else just like everybody else who is not a starving artist. So, no, they won't celebrate it and neither would you if you were honest. (note also that starving has a short time limit before you die so "if all of it leads to some form of superabundance" won't work in that circumstance)
> Okay but how does AI change any of that? You can still do that with AI
With your own code you reasoned about it which contributed to its stability. This meant that you could treat it like a black box. And if the abstraction leaked or was unstable, the code was still fresh enough in your head that you could evolve it and still preserve its invariants etc.
With unreviewed AI gen nobody ever understood or reasoned about the code, including the AI.
You're dead fucking right they are doing exactly that. They are saying that what is wrong is wrong.
Instead you seem to be making out that AI companies are some kind of victim that has to "worry" about "manipulation". Meanwhile authors are out of a job right now and not by accident. What's up with that?
But they work hard to try to understand it because the more they do the better the results for peoplea health. Also it goes without saying that if someone didn't understand many of the things that we do understand then things would be worse for us all.
What are you talking about? - The developers understood it. Did my car manufacturer do something to my discipline because I don't understand my car?
Why should they answer the question if you can't answer it yourself? What is he doing that is so "smart" or novel that it cannot be automated or mechanized right now? If you knew that answer you could put every one out of a job right now and you would be counting your trillions instead of asking "simple" questions on HN
The tradgedy is that HN used to be a great place to get honest and well argued opinion and anecdotes about new technologies and the different tradeoffs etc.
I have to be honest and say it's not very useful for me to hear you say this because you make your living from AI consulting and in a previous thread [1] you said that you don't review the code and then that you do. I'm not saying you have psychosis but your take on AI is inconsistent and confusing to me.
If, as an engineer, you rely completely on AI then you will be selected out of the work pool. Some engineers will still be needed. If I was interviewing them (I used to do a lot of this) then I will want the ones who understand the code. If they only use AI then it will quickly become clear that they don't understand it. Why would I hire them when another person can understand it?
From what I have seen AI doesn't understand the code. But even if you argue that it does understand the code it definitely doesn't understand the domain because it's only input channel is a stream of text and you didn't even type in a "full" text representation of the domain.
So you remain the only thing that can understand the whole system. If your competitor has no one (or no team) who can put together a full understanding of the system then you will have an advantage.
Let them eat cake.
It's not enough. The software model that you produce ends up becoming part of the domain. You need to understand the system. You are the only one who has the potential do that if you have the ability and are willing to work at it.
I think it will be like the outsourcing wave in the early 2000s. A lot of places ended up pulling development back in house when it became unsustainable.