>I'm the opposite I don't think I've read a single line of code I've shipped in over 6 months.
This feels unfair to the people dealing with your (LLM’s) code. You don’t vet it at all? Or am I reading this wrong?
This feels unfair to the people dealing with your (LLM’s) code. You don’t vet it at all? Or am I reading this wrong?
The original author points to the consolidation of military suppliers as a major issue, but the truth is that the economies of the western world have been massively dependent on this sort of consolidation and outsourcing for a large portion of the "growth" that they have achieved for a generation.
It would be convenient to think that the real question is "how do we climb back out of this hole?" but I feel the more pressing question is actually, "when and why will we start trying?"
The profit motive simply does not drive society in this direction.
The crises are catastrophic and perhaps even existential, but they are not profitable. You have to be a really lucky market timer to bet on crisis and win.
Avoiding crisis over the longer term is simply not investable.
"Fair" is not a relevant or useful conception in this context.
Not wasting other people’s time when they expect your work to at least pass a cursory check. It’s selfish and disrespectful. It reflects poorly on you. I don’t know about all that other stuff you wrote but it’s not really what I’m talking about so I’ll clarify.
I don’t know what your high school/college was like, but we used to trade papers for editing. It was universally considered bad practice to send rough/first drafts. It’s disrespectful and wastes the time of people who are being generous with it for you. You’re offloading your work in a selfish way.
Simply put: If I want an LLM’s raw results, I’ll prompt it myself. Why are you involved if I don’t want your work? Your expertise? Want to use an LLM then go for it but don’t just wipe its muddy boots on my work. At least look at the results.
Unfortunately, this is becoming even more common with LLM’s. I have no problem confronting people about it because 100% of the time they don’t want it done to them. It’s not even an argument, it’s catching them being selfish and they know it.
Is it correct? Is it any good? Should I subject another person to this? Is it profoundly rude to not even read their email and just have a robot respond automatically?
The slopmonger does not engage with the question at all, because they never cared.
Sending your unedited LLM outputs to me is not sticking it to the execs. If you really want to play that game, you go ahead and ship that or hand it to someone who deals with the final output. That’s your prerogative and you can face the consequences. I am not here to clean up your AI slop. That’s not my job. At that point you are the problem, not the c-suite.
All I hear from AI evangelists is “it’s a tool! It’s not the problem! It’s people using it wrong!” Ok, then the people using it are the problem if something is wrong. So if you act this way, which is clearly not a productive use of the tool, you are the problem.
Edit: let me just ask you a somewhat multi-faceted question. If you ask me for a summary of something and I simply hand you what ChatGPT gave me, would you say “thanks” and be satisfied? Is that what you wanted me to do? Is there a reason you asked me to do it instead of prompting ChatGPT yourself?
What if I did this every time I had to write anything? Every email. Every summary. Every report. Just prompt, copy, paste, send to you.
Yes. Again my job is to stay unexploited. Saying yes is the easiest option. I'll leave the worrying to the people making an order of magnitude more money than me.
If you want to phone it in or act your wage or whatever go ahead but don’t make it my problem. You’re not sticking it to your employer. You’re actively making your workplace worse for everyone else. Your decisions impact others.
This is like working in the service industry and simply not doing your job. Management doesn’t suffer and they’ll just fire you. The people you work with have to do your job for you. What have you actually accomplished?
Never said that. I said generating code with an LLM then not looking at it at all and pushing it (which is what started this whole comment thread) is a selfish and lazy decision.
Not everyone prescribes to a strict anti-work stance. Most people don’t in fact. So we’re at quite an impasse and it doesn’t change the fact that your decisions become your colleagues’ problems and does nothing to deconstruct/fight capitalism. I feel sorry for anyone who works with you if this is not an internet routine and reflects how you actually operate.
1) this is an arbitrary bar that needs more qualifiers (all code? All people?) and 2) citation needed.
I don’t care how it was generated. I want you to vet the results at some point with your knowledge and not send me whatever it spits out with no consideration for the results. You’re not sticking it to capitalism when you pass the buck to me. You’re being selfish.
I think we are just too far apart on this to be productive unfortunately. I just urge you to consider the impact of your choices. See my accessibility comment from a different part of the thread:
> I also may be staring at consequences you are not. It’s passing the buck with no regard for who is left to deal with the results at the end.
>What if we are working on, say, accessibility tasks? If I see your work won’t actually help those in society who seriously need these features, what am I supposed to do? My kneejerk is 1) fix it (more work for me, selfish on your part), 2) kick it back to your lazy hands that clearly doesn’t see this as an issue, or 3) send it up the chain (or laterally) where someone else has to ask these questions or - worse - it gets shipped and people who need this stuff are screwed. This is basic ethics.
Also anyone else dealing with it is just gonna be dealing with it via AI so it doesn't really matter.
If I worked somewhere where the CEO cared about hand written code I would be writing it and reading it but I don't.
I do video editing primarily. Your unedited AI trash = more interpretation by me, which means more work.
We're all now basically junior coders who have no idea what is in the codebase. Without LLMs, we won't be able to "deal" with any of it.
And I don't like it one bit.
I also may be staring at consequences you are not. It’s passing the buck with no regard for who is left to deal with the results at the end.
What if we are working on, say, accessibility tasks? If I see your work won’t actually help those in society who seriously need these features, what am I supposed to do? My kneejerk is 1) fix it (more work for me, selfish on your part), 2) kick it back to your lazy hands that clearly doesn’t see this as an issue, or 3) send it up the chain where someone else has to ask these questions or - worse - it gets shipped and people who need this stuff are screwed. This is basic ethics.