| ▲ | sorokod 5 hours ago |
| "junior developers" is a convenient label, it is incorrect but it will take a bit until we come up something that describes entities that: - can write code - tireless - have no aspirations - have no stylistic or architectural preferences - have massive, but at the same time not well defined, body of knowledge - have no intrinsic memories of past interactions. - change in unexpected ways when underlying models change - ... Edit: Drones? Drains? |
|
| ▲ | shermantanktop 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| - don't learn from what you tell them - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer. |
| |
| ▲ | cambaceres 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like my teammates. | |
| ▲ | Sammi 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | - don't learn from what you tell them Whenever I have a model fix something new I ask it to update the markdown implementation guides I have in the docs folder in my projects. I add these files to context as needed. I have one for implementing routes and one for implementing backend tests and so on. They then know how to do stuff in the future in my projects. | | |
| ▲ | Clent 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They still aren't learning. You're learning and then telling them to incorporate your learnings. They aren't able to remember this so you need to remind them each day. That sounds a lot like '50 First Dates' but for programming. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They aren't able to remember this Yes, this is something people using LLMs for coding probably pick up on the first day. They're not "learning" as humans do obviously. Instead, the process is that you figure out what was missing from the first message you sent where they got something wrong, change it, and then restart from beginning. The "learning" is you keeping track of what you need to include in the context, how that process exactly works, is up to you. For some it's very automatic, and you don't add/remove things yourself, for others is keeping a text file around they copy-paste into a chat UI. This is what people mean when they say "you can kind of do "learning" (not literally) for LLMs" | |
| ▲ | averageRoyalty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is true, but does it actually matter if the outcome is the same? GP is saying they don't need to remind them. |
| |
| ▲ | kvirani 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can this additional prompt from you also be automated? I do this too but I forget sometimes. I don't know if a general rule will be enough ? | |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I add these files to context as needed. Key words are these. > They then know how to do stuff in the future in my projects. No. No, they don't. Every new session is a blank slate, and you have to feed those markdown files manually to their context. |
| |
| ▲ | hmans 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | AstroBen 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Imagine having these complaints about a screwdriver It's a tool, not an intelligent being | | |
| ▲ | switchbak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, if my screwdriver undid the changes I just made to my mower, constantly ignored my desire to unscrew screws and instead punched a hole in my carb - I'd be throwing that screwdriver in the garbage. | |
| ▲ | timeon 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I do not need to babysit my screwdriver. | | |
| ▲ | ponector 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yet. Next year there will be AI screwdriver your employer force you to use. | | |
| ▲ | phs318u 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | At first, I thought “ponector’s forgotten to add the /s” Then I realised that this will actually happen, and was sadly reminded we’re now in the post-sarcasm era. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | - don't learn from what you tell them We'll fix that, eventually. - don't have career growth that you can feel good about having contributed to Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. - don't have a genuine interest in accomplishment or team goals Easy to train for, if it turns out to be necessary. I'd always assumed that a competitive drive would be necessary in order to achieve or at least simulate human-level intelligence, but things don't seem to be playing out that way. - have no past and no future. When you change companies, they won't recognize you in the hall. Or on the picket line. - no ownership over results. If they make a mistake, they won't suffer. Good deal. Less human suffering is usually worth striving for. | | |
| ▲ | noduerme 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Replace suffering with caring and have your AI write that again. | | | |
| ▲ | recursive 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. I feel pretty goddamned awesome about that. It's what we're supposed to be doing. It's also the premise of The Matrix. I feel pretty goddamned uneasy about that. | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | (Shrug) There are other sources of inspiration besides dystopic sci-fi movies. There's the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, for instance. Better not work on language translation, which after all is how the whole LLM thing got started. | | |
| ▲ | recursive 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sometimes fiction went in the wrong direction. Sometimes it didn't go far enough. In any case, the matrix wasn't my inspiration here, but it is a pithy way to describe the concept. It's hard to imagine how humans maintain relevancy if we really do manage to invent something smarter than us. It could be that my imagination is limited though. I've been accused of that before. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lowsong 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We'll fix that, eventually. > Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are. You're not describing a system that exists. You're describing a system that might exist in some sci-fi fantasy future. You might as well be saying "there's no point learning to code because soon the rapture will come". | | |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | That particular future exists now, it's just not evenly distributed. Gemini 2.5 Pro Thinking is already as good at programming as I am. Architecture, probably not, but give it time. It's far better at math than I am, and at least as good at writing. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | astrange 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You'd also have no intrinsic memory of past interactions if we removed your hippocampus. Coincidentally, the hippocampus looks like a seahorse (emoji). It's all connected. |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the hippocampus looks like a seahorse Not to mention; hippocampus literally means "seahorse" in Greek. I knew neither of those things before today, thanks! |
|
|
| ▲ | antfarm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| - constantly ignore your advice - constantly give wrong answers, with surprising confidence - constantly apologize, then make the same mistake again immediately - constantly forget what you just told them - ... |
|
| ▲ | auspiv 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I describe them in the claude training I'm doing for my company as: super smart, infinitely patient, overeager interns |
| |
| ▲ | kvirani 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sometimes smart sometimes the opposite, though. Perhaps due to memory loss. | | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not sure "smart" or "dumb" are even the right axis to be judging them by, seems like intrinsically human traits. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | kranke155 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Robots ? |
|
| ▲ | throwawaysleep 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sounds like a junior developer? They can usually write code, but not that well. They have lots of energy and little to say about architecture and style. Don't have a well defined body of knowledge and have no experience. Individual juniors don't change, but the cast members of your junior cohort regularly do. |
|
| ▲ | thatoneengineer 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "brooms" |
| |
