I work with someone who is very AI-forward, high confidence, and very low execution. He has started sending me large PRs of AI slop that he assured me doesn't need to be reviewed. I quickly find many minor issues from an initial pass of one of the reviews. He gets mad at the team for slowing him down.

He also will paste chat logs with Claude into our team chat. Often Claude will say the same thing I told him but he either doesn't remember or doesn't trust human engineers now.

He has spent months working on agent skills and prompring.

He has not landed anything in 3mo, and has landed nothing useful in ~1 year.

This will be the rest of my career. Working with people in ai psychosis and trying to stay productive.

▲

peteforde 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What's funny about this is that it sounds like your coworker reviews his LLM output roughly as well as you read the other replies before assuming that this was an anti-LLM pile-on thread.

▲

gravypod 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I did read the other replies. I don't think my comment is that LLMs are bad. I use LLMs and agents for work. I think my "oh shit" moment is the dynamic that giving someone LLMs amplifies their impact (positive or negative).

For example, some people give kids tiny go karts and that's acceptable because the damage they can do with a very tiny battery powered 4 wheeler is minimal. We now live in a world where everyone has access to a tank and can plow over everything.

I think LLMs will increase anti-social behavior.

	▲	peteforde 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ahh, gotcha. Personally, I worry far more about guns in this regard, but I feel you.

▲

estetlinus 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

CI/CD?

My non-techie friends send me screenshots of ChatGPT. I guess that’s a modern micro aggression?

▲

gravypod 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> CI/CD?

That is less useful when the changes are editing the tests but we don't know if a human has validated the assertions.

> My non-techie friends send me screenshots of ChatGPT. I guess that’s a modern micro aggression?

I think the concern I have is explicitly not the sending the chat logs. I think it's this flow:

1. Ask a question

2. Get an answer from a team member.

3. I don't like the answer and instead of discussing I am going to go to Claude and ask the same question.

4. Copy/paste the answer into chat without seeing if it includes novel information.

In one case the engineer was asking which model to select in the agent framework we are using. I gave an answer and provided a list of reasons. They did not like this answer and asked Claude which gave the same answer.

The answer was something inherently obvious and that anyone should be able to derive from first principals.

	▲	icedchai 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That is less useful when the changes are editing the tests but we don't know if a human has validated the assertions. Yep. I've witnessed this first hand many times. AI-enthusiastic coworker submits a PR. The tests don't pass. "Can you fix the tests? Then I'll review." Next commit has `assert status == 200` changed to `assert status == 500` all over the place, among other things. Yes, technically, the tests now pass, but... Last summer, this went on with one guy for weeks. Thousands and thousands of lines of slop. Eventually he was moved off the project and we threw away all his changes.