kusokurae

I'm very bored of non-analogous comparisons. Either it comes from a position of dishonesty of lack of thought, both of which are unacceptable.

For me, I can't vibecode everything bc it won't make it past our QC, and the complexity of the work done means I have to babysit and often step in and either do it manually or correct bad assumptions/stuff that isn't sufficient for the task.

I don't know what kinds of work that isn't trivial CRUD work is or isn't so easily streamlined but I do know folks in more complex/more safety critical stuff, we're just having to fucking sit there and babysit. It's so isolating, and even though I spend more time Not Coding than before, team culture and really any feeling of having value, skill, or pride in my work is off the wayside because the retards in management think, since we can do some stuff more quickly now, our human brains will be fine with taking in easily 5x more context for significantly more complex work on shorter timelines.

And unfortunately that often also compounds with the current state of the world in general. It's another straw on the donkey.

It's hard but if you read it once for the vibes and then pay closer attention the next time you go through it's not too hard. Baudrillard is a Zizek-level philosopher in the sense that his own celebrity is kind of at the centre of most of his work (this doesn't mean it's simple, dumb or low-quality, it's pretty interesting, it's just also kinda sci-fi/fanciful as opposed to hardcore logic-chopping or idk complex historiography like some of his contemporaries)

Good enough IFF you are dealing with a cute web app or simple SAAS or something.

Software engineers feeling down should think about software designed to track medication administration, or validate their tax calculations, or to decide whether to flag you for a CIFAS marker, or whatever, and then imagine the generic "fuck it, that'll do" type vibecoder-level-engineer handling the code.

Any and all discussion that suggests the deprecation of human-held domain-specific, manually-able knowledge & skill, on the basis of LLM capacity, is propaganda.

I should probably stop advocating for systematically killing the ultra-wealthy huh

I think there should be honesty about what "Doing" some of these things means. Outsourcing is "doing" IFF you regard the end product as the sole meaningful or significant part of a given goal or process.

"Have your digital slave do it for you" is not really doing it if doing something and difficulty refers to your own action, and there's a gradient between that extreme and manually grinding rocks to make silicone wafers. I did not just refactor a bit of code, something did it for me. I cannot take ownership for something I didn't actually sodding do, no amount of semantic dishonesty changes this.

Ultimately I am not going to listen to someone who has """""done""""'" a hiphop cover of their history test if they put it into some software that automated 80+% of it from lyric to beat, and their decision-making amounts to 'fuck it that will do'. I'll absolutely listen to someone who has given it a real crack through means convenient and not, if it seems like they give a crap.

It still makes me laugh when i see "prompt engineering". I open articles posted on here that contain many diagrams and novel jargon, all for it to amount to using a fucking markdown file with some text in it.

The problem is my friend you're right but people who tend to browse this website are no longer engineers who would also understand this; it's mostly HR, Managerial staff, and jaded engineers who never enjoyed implementation details, and who are presently trying to convince everyone else implementation details are no longer of relevance.

Ah yes, the (please copy & paste this message into an LLM to get it to generate a novel response in these parentheses)

The community portion that unironically think AI is good enough now, are mostly managers and non/semi-technical people, and engineers who do not engage in critical or complex problems. HN has always been too much of the velocity-alignment-synergy class of professional talkers; it's just so much more obvious now that they feel emboldened in false confidence.

It's just cope. I'm so close to just never coming back to HN because the quality of thought has just gone through the floor. Anything whatsoever to hedge one's way to fellating a phallusless chatbot

Incredibly impressive how, the moment AI becomes the topic of conversation, trivial things such as speaking in relative terms become incredibly difficult for the more addled of the prompting users.

Why must so much gumflapping involve the spew of any words but those which encourage not using the clear problem tool more.

"the question becomes how teams will manage cognitive debt" the question is why it is allowed to occur when it is avoidable. Farcical nonsense. Write the code yourself or be silent.

Really anything can (and must) be written to justify delegated thought. See: replies to this thread.

Why is it always so consistently a comparison to a technology of a fundamentally different order? Perhaps what has been lost is the ability to recognise distinct and incommensurable categories.

You aren't thinking myopically; it's a fundamental contradiction the root of which is in how human brains take in and understand new information. No amount of pontification or bollocks hedging as this and all other "thinkpieces" on this issue do, will change that. It is beyond preference and perspective. There is only doing the very task that produces skills pertaining to that task. Prompting alone or even in dominant is too far from this task. They can only write the code.

Without getting even more eyes on me, these company boards are inadequately scared for their personal safety.

Why not just not vibecode? Safer methods of injecting recreational narcotics, such madness.

On a creative level, I remember McCarthy describing scalped heads as like wet polyps blue in the moonlight. The more generic ways of describing something like that would never give me such a visceral reaction to the violence he was trying to tell me something about.

I already lose interest reading books where the phrases are recycled and the max sentencelength for the whole book grazes 40.

If people communicate to me without personality through prompt wastrelry I'll discount theirs and wait till they're willing to actually have an opinion. In this specific context style and substance tend to come in a pair or not at all. If you can't beat 'em you can at least filter 'em out.

I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.

Be very careful who sources your pacemaker.

Greptile literally spams PRs with overwhelming verbiage slop and often actively dangerous recommendations. I am tired of sales/propaganda masquerading as insight from vested interests.

I'm wrong for that. But whenever I suggest solutions for that, police officers visit me!

Reminded of that episode of House where the lady with dormant syphillis had something like this.

I wonder are there any ways I can contract this without breaking marital vows

My impression is that people who think that LLMs will completely release reviewing or writing code have never really worked on anything safety critical. I'm not looking forward to the next wave of pacemaker glitches.

Highly dependent on passage and writer imo, for anything before 1500

Some people I've had say middle english is easy enough to read now, and that's sometimes true, but if you drop some passages of Gawain or Pearl in front of people they'll be convinced it's an extra 2-300 years older. Anything non-London dialect is harder

At this stage the use this kind of rhetorical structure, whereby a series of affirmatory statements (sometimes alternatively a series of rhetorical questions) are used to hedge a following "but", is so regular and reliable a flagraiser that an article will be either propagandistic, blinded-by-science, or otherwise uncritically oleaginous towards AI, I know that I can close this article midway through already knowing that the title is both the substance of the argument and also incorrect.

And herein lies the rub: higher up in the comments we've got people Very Excited that this was co-written with a bot.