tediousgraffit1
Joined 50 karma
- This is a trust issue. If someone I trust hands me a big pr, I focus on the important details. If someone i dont trust hands me a big pr, i just reject it and ask them to break the problem down further. I dont waste my time on this kind of thing, regardless of whether it was hand written or generated.
- Nowhere in here does it indicate that the generated plan was wrong or broken. I dont care if you use ai to write. I care if you write well. If the author trusted the other person, then it shouldn't matter. If the author didn't trust the other person, then they'd have to validate their output anyway. Granted the tech allows people I dont trust to generate a lot more bs, a lot faster. But i just reject and move on with my life in that case. I am no ai booster but a lot people are expressing distaste for tools when they should be expressing distaste for fools.
- I guess this is more broad than like code triage and sites like that? Hard to tell cause I dont want to sign up to see what's in it.
- "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- I Don't Know, Timmy, Being God Is a Big Responsibility https://qntm.org/responsibilit
- ok but how does it work though? Is this seriously just passing the titles to some llm with a prompt like 'roast this'? is it reading the actual content of the link as well?
- By that logic, we should ban lettuce[1] next
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/e-coli-outbreak-trac...
- lol, if the primary outcome is better documentation...i'll take it
- Yeah, this is a good blog article and a great pitch for this service. There was a discussion yesterday about where to look for the next github...
- > You’re not rejecting a bad engineer, you’re rejecting someone who doesn’t perform well while being watched.
a related thing here is that I've long believed that remote work positively impacted my career for precisely this reason.
- I'm curious how you would respond to the folks who are concerned that asking people to 'just do the work' in an interview are asking for unpaid labor, and that's unfair?
(post made me lol, thanks)
- Because we can still do things computers can't and that's interesting
- this is the key idea right here. LLMs are not replacing good coders, they're electric yak shavers that we should all learn how to use. The value add is real, and incremental, not revolutionary.
- I really like this, this is the perfect size project for exploring a new piece of tech. I especially like that you implemented an actual cli and not just tests.
- This. No one, not even the very wicked, get up in the morning and think 'Im going to go make some old, bad stuff, because I'd like to decrease the amount of The Good in the world.' This article reads like the height of narcissistic navel-gazing, with absolutely zero nontrivial insight.
- That just pushes the question off a step; a chair fit for sitting isn't fit for sleeping, etc. Fitness assumes a purpose.
- I believe musk to be a fool and this reinforces that belief. It should not have taken him 3 years to realize that the value of Twitter was the hot and cold running stream of conversational data.
- I love this and I'm not trying to be a downer, but I do think it's funny that 'go outside and talk to your neighbors' is an innovative idea in 20xx
- I'm ignorant, what do they have in 3) cutting edge robotics?
- You just want to code, I get, I'm the same way. What helps me is recognizing that in the 'corporate' environment, the challenge is not merely solving technical problems, but also coordination problems. Negative work is real, and avoiding it _requires_ coordination. That's what the 'corporate processes' are directed at.
Now, understanding this fact enables us not only to better understand why we do these things, but also provides a concrete way to criticize and improve those process. You can use data to figure out which processes aren't actually improving quality, velocity, and coordination.
Tldr: be the change you want to see.
- Everyone's focused on the dumb 'backups' pitch and missing all the interesting engineering problems people are mentioning as objections against it.
- > Not related to Project 2025, and they have countless times said they aren't associated with that project.
lmao the chief author is the head of the OMB my guy[1]
[1]https://apnews.com/article/trump-russell-vought-confirmation...
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The problem isn't so much that people can do bad work faster than ever now, its that we can no longer rely on the same heuristics for quickly assessing a given piece of work. I dont have a great answer. But I do still think it has something to do with trust and how we build relationships with each other.