I agree with the general sentiment that the structure of society is going to change, but I don't know what the satisfying solution is. It's hard to imagine not participating will work, or even be financially viable for me, for long.

▲

wedemmoez 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree. I'm the AI luddite on my team of red team security engineers, but I'm still using it in very limited use cases. As much as I disagree with how the guardrails around AI are being handled, I still need to use it to stay relevant in my field and not get canned.

▲

hootz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm already adding "Agentic Workflows" as a skill in my LinkedIn profile. Cringed hard at that, but oh well...

▲

pydry 9 hours ago | parent [-]

What if the hiring managers at the jobs you'd actually prefer to work at also cringe when they see it on your profile?

▲

hn_throwaway_99 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's becoming so ubiquitous, I highly doubt it. At worst I think a manager would just see it as fluff, but not a negative.

▲

bluefirebrand 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I hope the hiring managers I would actually want to work for would see it as a red flag on resumes

▲

pesus 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

At this point, I'd assume those hiring managers are also being forced to use AI in their jobs (or pretend, at least) and probably wouldn't read too much into it if it's not a substantial portion of their resume. I do feel the same way, though.

▲

MarcelOlsz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? It's just the name of the game, everyone gets it. Especially if you're a generalist/frontend type.

	▲	bluefirebrand 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's simply not a game I'm interested in playing. I'll find something else to do instead, leave the AI jockeying to others.

▲

pydry 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I asked coz know several managers who would look upon it as a red flag and I suspect OP would probably prefer to work for them rather than AI sheep.

▲

hootz 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's actually a really good point.

▲

miltonlost 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm using claude but then refuse to do much cleaning up of what it spews. Im leaving that for the PR reviewers who love AI and going through slop. If they want slop, I'll give them the slop they want.

▲

whstl 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not advocating that people should follow this but:

As someone that loves cleaning up code, I'm actually asking the vibe coders in the team (designer, PM and SEO guy) to just give me small PRs and then I clean up instead of reviewing. I know they will just put the text back in code anyway, so it's less work for me to refactor it.

With a caveat: if they give me >1000 lines or too many features in the same PR, I ask them to reduce the scope, sometimes to start from scratch.

And I also started doing this with another engineer: no review cycle, we just clean up each other's code and merge.

I'm honestly surprised at how much I prefer this to the traditional structure of code reviews.

Additionally, I don't have to follow Jira tickets with lengthy SEO specs or "please change this according to Figma". They just the changes themselves and we go on with our lives.

	▲	grvdrm 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Favorited. I was talking to someone (non-dev) yesterday who prototypes with Claude and then goes back/forth with the lead engineer to clean it up and make it production worthy (or at least more robust). I like that model.

▲

MSFT_Edging 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just started work on a project. Greenfield and "AI accelerated". PRs diffs are in the range of 10s of thousands of lines. In the PR, it is suggested to not actually read all the code as it would take too long.

▲

jmccaf 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If you push a change, or you approve, you're responsible for the change and its effects later. Regardless of size. If change is too big, tell your teammates its too big to review and to refactor to bite-size with their great coding agents. Use AI models also for review of large changes, consider a checklist . Setup CI and integration tests (also can be AI assisted)

	▲	JTbane 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Agreed, and something will go wrong (as every junior has experienced). You cannot lay blame on the AI when git blame shows your name.
	▲	MSFT_Edging 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Oh there's plenty of CI, linting, etc. Half of which is not properly plumbed in.

▲

kelzier 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I thought the de facto policy was that the individual remains responsible in a team context.

	▲	notpachet 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sweet summer child.

▲

jbxntuehineoh 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

based. our CEO has made it clear that we're expected to use LLMs to shit out as many features as we can as quickly as we can, so that's exactly what I'm doing. Can't wait to watch leadership flail around in a year or two when the long term consequences start to become apparent

	▲	red75prime 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> when the long term consequences start to become apparent Choose your own story! and then a) programmers become relevant again and slowly fix all this crap, b) Claude 7.16 waltz through fixing things as it goes.
	▲	eloisius 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You'll just get laid off and they'll be onto the next hype cycle as visionaries.

▲

chungusamongus 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's exactly it. This person does not understand the coercive competition of the market. If you don't use new tech, you are going to be undercut by people who do. And every HR dept is going to expect to to have experience with AI even if the department that’s hiring doesn't really use it. If the author's supposed solution to the problem has negative personal consequences, why would you do it? To be nice?

▲

miltonlost 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because I don't like the feeling my conscience gives me by doing something I think is evil and bad. Some people have moral lines that they won't cross when finding jobs.

If my competitors are filling their flour with sawdust, guess I got to just do the same?

	▲	nradov 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your moral compass is skewed. Customers don't care what tools we use, they just want products that work. Is a wheat farmer who ploughs a field with horses more moral than one who uses a tractor? The resulting flour tastes the same either way.
	▲	fnimick 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		No, we won't do the same, but enough people will that it doesn't matter. Such is the way it goes.
	▲	Glemllksdf 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Its not the same. Its clearly shit to replace flour with sawdust. Having different opinions on AI/LLMs doesn't make the use of it the same as replacing flour with sawdust. The AI 'image' slop for example, i don't think its bad. But i also don't think it takes anything from a real artist. It takes jobs from people with drawing skills but it doesn't change anything for an artist.

▲

throwanem 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. I'm doing it because I care more whether I can live with myself than whether I impress people with the name of who I work for. Hence much of my recent comment history here, for example. I don't want any of these people getting the idea they should want me to work with them, either. I do want my name on every industry blacklist I can possibly get it on. Those will eventually be revealed - remember Franklin's dictum, fellas! That shit always comes out in the end - and I look forward to that day with pleased and eager anticipation.

At the moment I'm more looking at menial work for one of the local universities. Money is money, and my needs are small; the work is honest, I still should have a decade or so of physical labor left in me, and it carries the perk of free tuition for the degree I never had time for. I would have the time and energy to write, perhaps, even! And, however badly the people in charge are running things lately, the world will always need someone good at cleaning a toilet. (And I am already pretty good at cleaning a toilet!)

▲

chungusamongus 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That's nice for you but other people have kids to feed and don't particularly care about your little crusade, which will fail.

▲

throwanem 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Go look in a mirror, not at me. That's where the argument is waiting that you're feeling urged toward.

▲

chungusamongus 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What you just said was an elaborate tu quoque fallacy. You aren't comprehending my basic point, which is that individual ethical decisions are not going to make a difference when all of the broader incentives are causing people to act otherwise.

▲

EinigeKreise 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The idea behind principles is that you're supposed to stick to them anyways.

	▲	chungusamongus 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Lets put aside the fact that none of you have coherently outlined what supposed principles are relevent here. The thing worth noting is, the argument presented in the article seems to be consequentialist, and I'm saying it will fail to produce the consequences the author supposedly wants.

▲

dilDDoS 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really weird that you're basically advocating people to not have principles if they don't align with "broader incentives". Also lol at you pulling the "some people have kids to feed" bullshit in a thread where we're all making way more money than most people.

▲

chungusamongus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think some of you do not have a grasp on systems thinking at all, and its embarassing for people who supposedly frequent communities like these. I'm not advocating anything. I'm making a descriptive statement. I do worry that basic lack of understanding between descriptive and normative claims is contributing to the confusion here.

	▲	throwanem 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's rich out of somebody who obviously has no concept of signaling theory. Not to mention, of course, that "systems thinking" makes no comment on human ethics or morality. Unlike some, the people working in the field seem generally to know their limits. But you're right that clarity is important. In that spirit, it was your cowardly effort to excuse your behavior, and your obviously motivated effort to ameliorate its moral odium which you feel, that I criticized. This was and is in the course of helping you fully grasp that whatever is driving you, here, feels unconscionable to you because it is unconscionable and you know it, just as you understand in your heart that there is no excuse. Else you would not strive so here, in the hope someone else may supply what you failed to achieve alone. I don't know just what it is that you're feeling so exercised with guilt over. Nor do I care. You know. For the rest of us, I confide, it will eventually become part of the public record, and I'm happy to wait that day without further unprompted comment here.

▲

throwanem 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I know lots of families who feed their kids just fine on something less than a quarter million US a year. Just about all the families I know with kids, these days.

▲

chungusamongus 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If we want to get into anecdotes... most of the people I know with kids are seriously struggling. And that aligns more closely with economic data than what you said. Most people do not have a robust emergency fund at all.

▲

throwanem 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand why you would rather "get into anecdotes" than answer my point. I don't understand why you keep posting, save perhaps that "the guilty flee where no man pursueth." The account you're using is without history or reputation. All you have to do to make this end is stop.

▲

chungusamongus 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

I did address your point by directly refuting it, and you responded with a total non sequitur. Are you okay buddy? I'm making a relatively basic argument about the ability of households to make ends meet and you're quoting bible passages, looking into my account history, and making random accusations. The guilty flee where none pursueth? You're literally attempting to prosecute me, lmao. But please, "pursueth" away. You are the one who looks a little weird in this scenario.

I made my account today because I wanted to comment on this article and I didn't have an account previously. Is that a crime? Are you going to report me to the thought police? Lmao some of the people on here are a little intense. Maybe take some deep breaths and realize I'm not trying to harm you. I wish you the best. I just disagree with the way you think on this particular issue.

	▲	throwanem 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's remarkable to me that you should be so concerned with my perspective, if you believe me insane as you claim. Evidently you are concerned with my perspective, considering the effort you keep going to to continue to gain its benefit. I've explained why I think that is, and I'm not likely to change my mind at this point. You should really think about why it means so much to you to keep trying to negotiate otherwise.

▲

throwanem 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you keep telling yourself that, do you think it will eventually help you sleep at night?