you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

I’m anti-AI, essentially, but I think this touches on what may be an important arc in all this (very speculatively at least).

Namely, maybe humanity had ~20 years to make tech “good” (or not bad), from 1990 to 2010 say, and failed. Or maybe missed the mark.

What that would look like, I’m not sure exactly, but I wonder how much your general sentiments are distributed amongst tech people — how much the average person who’s substantially touched tech is just over all of the minutiae, yak shaving, boilerplate, poor documentation, inconsistencies, backwards incompatibilities … etc etc. Just how much we’ve all been burnt out on the idea of this as a skill and now just feel it’s more like herding cats.

All such that AI isn’t just making up for all the ways tech is bad, but a big wake up call on what we even want it to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I can see the point you are making. But at the same time, a lot of the tech I touched is already quite mature, and is probably decently documented.

    I totally understand the feeling you are describing of just hearding cats. Without an LLM, this project would have taken 10x as long, with 9/10s of that time being spent reading forum posts and github bug reports and stack overflow questions which I think might solve the problem but which actually don't.

    But at the same time, I'm in a pretty common position in software where I don't know anything about a mature and well designed tool, but I don't want to really learn how it works because odds are, I will only use it once - or at least, by the time I use it again, I will have forgotten everything about it. And the LLM was able to do my googling for me and tell me "do this", which was far faster and more pleasant. So I think this use case is quite reasonable.

  • source
  • parent