Some teams have plugins and workflows around particular IDEs. Though I don't think any team has a workflow around AI that can't be done with human intelligence

I said that I can feel myself getting more and more stupid when using these tools, due to the mental offloading.

It takes a lot of self reflection to notice how well you understood a thing before genAI use, and how that understanding starts to disappear quickly after using genAI a lot more. I, too, noticed a similar reduction in ability and understanding of topics the more I used genAI. Now, I only use it as a last resort or when searching online will return too many unrelated results due to description of the problem being too generic.

A senior web dev is all about it at my work and I can't really stand him nor genAI so I'm glad I don't work directly with him or his team!

Yes. Also big tech

We've been commanded to rework all workflows to be agentic, whatever the hell that means.

Even better, it's overeager interns that don't learn.

I think somewhere in my organisation there's a very strong bulwark against AI encroachment, and I suspect it's our IT security because data protection and privacy are pretty much their top priority (we take it seriously in general). I don't think I've read anything published or sent internally that reads like AI slop.

Not as bad, but they have started setting goals for how much AI we should use. No one knows what the fuck that means. Just this magical belief that any use of AI somehow increases productivity, despite there being scientific studies that it actually lowers productivity.

At a standup meeting, CEO asked whether we use AI and I was the only one who said that I don't use it at all, or very rarely, starting a little discussion. Overall, their position is somewhat moderate. They do fall for the hype a lot (especially with the recent Claude stuff) but it did not seem that it was a requirement for us to use it. But they were curious why I do not embrace this so much and I said that I can feel myself getting more and more stupid when using these tools, due to the mental offloading. This seemed to resonate a bit with the others, at least I could feel that my coworkers in the round got my point, despite remaining silent.

Coworker recently came to my desk and jokingly asked why I was typing out code by hand when I could ask Claude to generate it for me, but there was also a bit of seriousness to it, so I cringed a lot

Old man still yelling at the cloud 🤣

Any sort of tech company was always a headless chicken. It's just that when software developers were the hot thing on the horizon we were oblivious to the stupidity that thrives in corporate.

If you think about a business that maximizes profit, and sample opinions from the business side about the business domain.. you would be forgiven to assume the replies are nothing short of genius. However, the facade of brilliance falls apart the moment you attempt to sample anything adjacent to business or unrelated to it. You will realize that having experience in and making a lot of money does not translate well to other endeavors where making money is not the main concern.

Now that we have been milked dry like Apids in an Ant farm and have been virtually kicked out of the money making complex, we start to realize we were just cattle all along and that praise for our stature in the industry as the eponymous "genius" of the entire operation was just flattery to assuage any inconvenience we perceived through corporate bullshit. They succeeded in avoiding drawing our ire towards the incredibly narrow-sighted and hollow endeavor that is making the line go up exponentially.

Now that facade has fallen face first at the dawn of the LLM era. The arrogance that hid from software engineers and developers but was all too apparent to blue collar and "lesser" corporate functions has shown it's face to us, the enlightened morons.

Thanks for coming to (hehe) my TED talk

I’m lucky I’m in a company that hasn’t gone far deep into the AI rabbit hole. They have set up Claude Code for us and encourage us to use it if we want, but that’s about it.

More than 95% of management is utterly incompetent. All they do is follow the newest grift because they are not capable and don't want to actually evaluate something based on necessity or need. Examples of this are Agile, Cloud (AWS, Azure, etc), AI and many more.

It’s terrible, every single job posting is requiring using AI. That’s how you can tell it’s all a house of cards. Imagine reading a job post that said you’d be required to use JetBrains IDEs, you’d be thinking, “what the hell, why is this in a job post??”

AI at best is as good as having a mailroom full of overeager interns.

That is the best description of AI that I've seen.

Nope, definitely taken the position that LLM- based "AI" is actively harmful, at best.

That being said... It is a casino. So it makes sense they are generally pretty risk-averse.

I'm cleaning up AI slop but have been tasked with using more AI to do it faster and deliver more features. Doesn't matter to me. I'm getting paid 🤷 It'll be somebody else's problem soon enough, if the company survives.

My eye will be on the job market soon and I do wonder what it will be like. It seems like AI is eroding the minds of many.

Yep. Big healthcare, same thing.

It's like they don't realize that AI at best is as good as having a mailroom full of overeager interns. Who in their right mind would want to put in front of clients?! Or worse have it run critical business systems.

Microsoft?

You could make it so that the government doesn’t know who’s requesting it.

This just seems like a great way for your government to know every single thing you do online.

No. I'm asking how you'd make the child mode a truly one-way thing.

And you've essentially just admitted that you aren't actually suggesting that at all.

Physically blowing a fuse in a CPU to achieve an equivalent result to a text file containing a date, is a little silly.

If you're gonna fall back on legal assurances anyway, simply make it a software thing. Not being able to just unlock your devices when you're old enough is a recipe for e-waste, anyway.

In this system, no adults would have to age verify. No adult identity would be sent anywhere. All devices are "adult" by default.

That makes no sense. A single bit isn't significant unless read and enforced by software. And if you're suggesting "burning" or "purging" some kind of token that is to be authenticated to show a device is in one mode or the other... Then you've just added a new kind of hardware id.

And are you saying adults escape any kind of tracking.... But kids don't?

Correct me if I am wrong the base problem, but we're not trying to lock down the OS. We're trying to limit the adult internet to children right?

The problem here is that the OS and all applications on them would need to change their behavior based on the mode.

So the AuthZ event can occur at the remote web server (or server serving the API). Yes, those would have to change. The AuthN event would supported by the web browser (or other software) making the call to the remote server. So yes, those would have to support the check of the CPU flag.

How are you going to prevent ROM flashing or storage replacement to modify the OS or other software?

Legal protections, not technical ones. This is the same method we use to prevent someone from setting up a distillery in their kitchen and making their own whiskey. There's nothing technologically limiting people from doing this, only laws. Also, the only people breaking the law to circumvent the child protections would be children, or adults purposefully trying to assist children in bypassing this check. The children committing the crime would be handled in the existing juvenile justice system the same way an under-aged child that is caught with alcohol. An adult assisting children with circumvention would be prosecuted the same way as an adult that buys booze for under-aged children.

In this system, no adults would have to age verify. No adult identity would be sent anywhere. All devices are "adult" by default.

What do you mean by government suppression? The government suppressing entities, or you as the authorizing individual?

EU has eIDAS, and Germany has an existing working system. A certified publisher and you with your NFC phone can confirm your age above x without disclosing any other information about your identity. It runs with sophisticated cryptographic negotiation between the three parties. For you as an end user, obviously the government already knows of your existence beforehand and can serve as an authorative entity. The two other parties can then verify their validity to each other through the mutually trusted entity without revealing unnecessary information to any of the parties. Practically, the requesting entity must be certified by the state to confirm their validity and reasonable necessity of what kind of data they plan to request, and the user use their moile phone NFC and an app to read their identity document, and give explicit consent to specific data sharing.

I'm not too familiar with the specifics of what the state can see in this system. It seemed plausible to me that they may not even see that you're authenticating with a specific party or that and what you're sharing. Cryptography ftw.

No.

We use used to have a privacy friendly solution that allowed parents to monitor their kid's internet use.

You just had to put it in shared area.

The question isn't whether having access to hardcore porn is harmful. The question is the relative degree of harm.

When a web service can reliably distinguish between adult and child, it can specifically target content to either. Netflix can provide age-appropriate content to its users. That's great.

Groomers can specifically target members of their desired audience. That's not so great. That's bad. That's really, really bad. That's much worse than kids finding hardcore pornography. And that degree of targeting is only possible with widespread age verification laws.