> I shot down similar arguments in favor of outsourcing overseas for years. Outsourcing any critical logic to an LLM is even worse.

Outsourcing to another continent of humans and supplementing workflows with LLMs are entirely different operational universes. I think it is fair to put them on the same spectrum, but they're really far apart.

I'd argue outsourcing is a far more aggressive abdication of ownership of the technology than bringing an LLM agent in house and having it light a few fires under a few asses.

▲

noduerme an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Other than the delay time, I'm not sure I see the difference. You're removing your primary from the job of writing code, putting them into an editorial role, which removes responsibility and agency and actual hands-on understanding. The quality of the code is beside the point. More friction (language barriers, time zone difference) is actually better if you want to maintain institutional knowledge, because it requires more intellectual engagement. Accepting the LLM answer is too easy and leads to a decay of the systems knowledge and of the thought process.

[edit] as the sibling points out, decayed system knowledge leads to relying on the LLM to fix the bugs the LLM introduced, which causes further decay in the institutional ability to reason with the business logic in code.

	▲	someguyiguess 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I reject the premise that using LLMs absolutely leads to loss of institutional knowledge. It is trivial for an LLM to generate a knowledge base of any kind in any language which can answer any question about your institution at any time. How is a bunch of fragmented humans with limited knowledge who can’t all communicate with each other better than that?

▲

jddj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can be as similar to or as far from outsourcing as you allow it to be.

The "if AI code breaks, who will fix it? -> "AI will fix it" exchange has (anecdotally) been very common among executives, which is much closer to outsourcing than programming.

▲

wjnc an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

No need for the downvotes imho. Can’t speak for u/noduerme but in putting outsourcing (labor, LLM/AI) in the same basket I don’t see a category mistake, but a dry way of looking at business. What are the risks, what are the rewards, what future skills are we at risk of losing (the business logic part) if we go in direction XYZ.

Something completely different (but with the same logic): do you outsource legal, hire your own team of business lawyers or will you let customer services use AI for legal problems (and only hire a lawyer for a day in court)? I think all three solutions are currently active in different firms. From a risk perspective I would always want a lawyer on my team. Insource those learnings. But perspectives vary.

	▲	noduerme 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not sure if you were asking me, but the company I'm CTO of has in-house legal counsel, even though it's not a huge company. Their decision to keep software and also marketing/branding and art direction in-house for the past 20 years has followed the same logic. [which is to say: When they began as a single shop, the first thing they did was bring on legal]. I think it's a smart way of doing things. It's certainly a lot cheaper, and it earns more loyalty and commitment. Moreover, any of us can run essential questions by each other, the marketing director, the lawyer, the CEO, the GM. And everyone has a stake. So all the creative and business decisions are worked out pretty quickly, and new features roll out with everything vetted and in place.