3
points
laserlight
Joined 1,920 karma
- laserlightAs an outsider, I understand what wpietri argues, but I fail to understand yours --- even though I've read other branches of the discussion. Do you argue that wpietri's method still estimates tasks but the estimation is always around two weeks?
- I keep fighting this stupid platitude [0]. By that logic, I fail to find anything malicious. Everything could be explained by incompetence, stupidity etc.
- > "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence"
I don't think there's anything that cannot be explained by incompetence, so this statement is moot. If it walks like malice, quacks like malice, it's malice.
- What does OpenDarwin or PureDarwin, independent projects, have to do with the fact that Darwin, Apple’s OS kernel, is open source?
- > “I don’t see the point of maintaining a documentation for developers. They should be able to grep and understand the code itself”
I cannot think that this comment is done in good faith, when I clearly wrote above that documentation should already exist for humans:
> A simple readme or a design document, which already should exist for humans, should be enough.
- > the problem with waterfall wasn't the detailed spec
The detailed spec is exactly the problem with the waterfall development. The spec presumes that it is the solution, whereas Agile says “Heck, we don't even understand our problem well, let alone understanding a solution to it.”
Beginning with a detailed spec fast with an LLM already puts you into a complex solution space, which is difficult to navigate compared to a simpler solution space. Regardless of the iteration speed, waterfall is the method that puts you into a complex space. Agile is the one you begin with smaller spaces to arrive at a solution.
- > There is a spec, but there is no waterfall required to work and maintain it.
The problem with waterfall is not that you have to maintain the spec, but that a spec is the wrong way to build a solution. So, it doesn't matter if the spec is written by humans or by LLMs.
I don't see the point of maintaining a spec for LLMs to use as context. They should be able to grep and understand the code itself. A simple readme or a design document, which already should exist for humans, should be enough.
- Yep. All are valid questions. I would rather have Zuckerberg donate to charitable causes than not. But this kind of bullshit indicates me that it's mainly for show.
- > giving away
Giving away to their own LLC, not to a non-profit [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Zuckerberg_Initiative
- It's ironic that you described how the 2008 financial crisis came to be to illustrate how “normal” this circularity is.
- > Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I don't think there's anything that can't be attributed to stupidity, so the statement is pointless. Besides, it doesn't really matter naming an action stupidity, when the consequences are indistinguishable from that of malice.
- I wouldn't be surprised if customers are easier to convince, than sales people, that the prototype is not suitable for deployment.
- That's a gross misrepresentation of reality. It gives the false impression that gold prices always increase, which is not the case. Gold is a volatile asset, i.e., it's a relatively risky investment.
It took 8 years for gold to recover from circa 2012 drop. 8 years is twice as long as S&P 500 took to recover from 2008 financial crisis. More importantly, see the 1980 high. It took 26 years to get back to the same point. Anyone considering investment should adjust their expectations accordingly.
- Ed Zitron was famous for writing “The Man Who Killed Google Search” [0] (see also its HN thread [1]).
- “I'm eating fewer calories yet keep putting on weight.”
There's a reason self-reported measures are questioned: they have been wildly off in different domains. Objectively verifying that a car is faster than walking is easy. When it's not easy to objectively prove something, then there are a lot that could go wrong, including the disagreements on the definition of what's being measured.
- I understand that you would prefer to be more “productive” with AI but without any sales than be less productive without AI but with sales.
To clarify, people critical of the “productivity increase” argument question whether the productivity is of the useful kind or of the increased useless output kind.
- > if everything aligns then there are superhuman productivity gains.
This is a truism and, I believe, is at the core of the disagreement on how useful AI tools are. Some people keep talking about outlier success. Other people are unimpressed with the performance in ordinary tasks, which seem to take longer because of back-and-forth prompting.
- Which has been doublespeak from day one.
- It's not that hard when you have proper education, scientific practice, understanding that you don't have to succumb to the fear pumped by those in power, and surplus time and energy to put everything in perspective in a constantly changing world. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's difficult to break out of one's echo chamber.