onion2k

@[email protected]
0 Followers
0 Following
4 Posts
Website: http://ooer.com. Email: [email protected] BTC: 36MnfZKKU3LjseeC4jtBGcqGEyU9GJkyTM

meet.hn/city/gb-Sunderland
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.

Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup
Show threadonion2k4d ago

Given enough time to reconsider options, people will be endlessly flip-flopping between them grabbing onto various features over and over in a loop.

People will default to believing something is AI if there's no downside to that opinion. It's a defence mechanism. It stops them being 'caught out' or tricked into believing something that's not true.

As soon as there's a potential loss (e.g. missing out on getting rich, not helping a loved one) people will switch off that cynical critical thinking and just fall for AI-driven scams.

This is the downside of being a human being.

Show threadonion2kMar 17
I think Claude could raise it's prices 100x and people would still use it. It'd just shift to being an enterprise-only option and companies would actually start to measure the value instead of being "Whee, AI is awesome! We're definitely going really fast now!"
Show threadonion2kMar 17

Putting too much trust in an agent is definitely a problem, but I have to admit I've written about a dozen little apps in the past year without bothering to look at the code and they've all worked really well. They're all just toys and utilities I've needed and I've not put them into a production system, but I would if I had to.

Agents are getting really good, and if you're used to planning and designing up front you can get a ton of value from them. The main problem with them that I see today is people having that level of trust without giving the agent the context necessary to do a good job. Accepting a zero-shotted service to do something important into your production codebase is still a step too far, but it's an increasingly small step.

onion2kMar 17

But you can’t just not review things!

Actually you can. If you shift the reviews far to the left, and call them code design sessions instead, and you raise problems on dailys, and you pair programme through the gnarly bits, then 90% of what people think a review should find goes away. The expectation that you'll discover bugs and architecture and design problems doesn't exist if you've already agreed with the team what you're going to build. The remain 10% of things like var naming, whitespace, and patterns can be checked with a linter instead of a person. If you can get the team to that level you can stop doing code reviews.

You also need to build a team that you can trust to write the code you agreed you'd write, but if your reviews are there to check someone has done their job well enough then you have bigger problems.