| ▲ | ffsm8 7 hours ago |
| At my dayjob there is a person spearheading ai across the enterprise. They generated lots of documentation across the whole stack and now makes all PO/BAs read it if it's correct. So not just 300 lines - he unironically generated thousands of lines of "documentation" and is now making hundreds of people review it for him Complete brainrot Au psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this point Thankfully I'm a dev and thus aren't in the blast radius of that genius idea |
|
| ▲ | prymitive 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think a lot of that is people who were always very insecure because they’re mediocre engineers. Previously asking questions or not understanding something was a bit painful but now you can hear “you’re absolutely right!” and make progress all day every day.
Until you need to interact with actual humans and that’s why you try to minimise it, hiding behind ai generated content. |
| |
| ▲ | ungreased0675 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m not a developer, but when I watch devs whose work process is prompt, copy-paste, try to run, paste error into code, try to run, etc. I can’t help but think they’re unskilled. There’s no brain engagement, no understanding of the bigger picture, just being a worse slower agent. | | |
| ▲ | jvanderbot 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but even worse, is the state-of-the-art: they use a cli agent and the "copy-paste, try to run, paste error, try to run" loop is called "Agentic engineering." Now we have to believe they're 10/10? I see no difference there except speed at the cost of whatever little understanding may have been gained by the manual inspection between steps. | | |
| ▲ | orangedog 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I was watching a vid where the creator of redis added utf-8 support to his text editor using this process. How else are you supposed to use them? This is how they work, getting quick, tight feedback is the best way. | |
| ▲ | derrida 7 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | while 0: x=ctrl-c("output error report")
eval(ctrl-v(x))
sleep(10)
user("Input...")
something like this? |
|
| |
| ▲ | xyproto 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's also very easy to dismiss everyone falling into the "AI trap" as being mediocre in the first place, though. But one just can't know this without having seen their work pre-AI. | | |
| ▲ | bigfishrunning 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the "meat proxy" people are mediocre regardless of whether or not the were brilliant pre-AI. They've reduced themselves to a copy-paste go-between for claude and slack (or github or jira or whatever) and are mediocre now. If only they could turn back the clock... | |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think people tend to forget that not only do we ourselves have different skillsets and can be amazing at one thing but horrible but another, but this also applies to other people in the world! Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. Maybe this «spearheading AI person» just sucks at AI related stuff, as clearly that approach is bananas, but they could still be a OK developer. | | |
| ▲ | skydhash an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Far all we know, there is an amazing developer out there who without LLMs, might have been the single best developer in the country, but even this person might not be able to figure out how to effectively work with LLMs. And vice-versa too. If working with LLMs effectively means accepting subpar results or be a reverse centaur, then I’d be glad not to be able to work with them. I’ve never seen a good example where AI is a net positive to any development workflow. No one argues against compilers, build tools, IDEs, task runners, deploy and orchestration tools. Because they are great levers that lets you create more with less effort. | | |
| ▲ | vehemenz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Many developers have narrow job descriptions, and the creative, productive uses of AI aren’t really obvious. Where it shines is glueing systems together or building one-off automations that would take days, or weeks, to figure out. It’s for things you don’t have time to figure out or didn’t think were possible. | |
| ▲ | yoz-y an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh. The useful LLM usage I see is in internal tools (bugs don’t matter because the output or UI is the only thing that counts and they are throw away) or personal projects that otherwise wouldn’t exist. Both of these can be quite invisible. But the benefit is there. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | randusername an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All paradigm shifts and regime changes happen because of a coalition of people that have nothing to gain and everything to lose by the current system. But I think we should decouple mediocrity from laziness. I haven't seen any team invest in the mentorship required to develop juniors in years, for example. | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe that's how you get people in HN claiming to be infinitely more productive now thanks to AI. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The ones who get more productive are either the very incompetent who get pulled up to the AI-floor level, or the very competent who know when and how to use it and for what. The midwits are too proud to use it and instead placate themselves that their precious skill is more special and immune to mechanization than it really is. Many many people have jobs where their contribution is granting access to deliberately undocumented things, like knowing where the config files are and some such. They hate the idea of AI. For my non IT friends its great for diagnosing wifi issues. It's also great for competent network engineers. It's not great for those who gain a salary due to having memorized some actions or settings that they don't even understand much. Note that this group has also already resisted traditional script automation, just like US dock workers who resist automation. | | |
| ▲ | nmeagent 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I would bet real cash money that many many people, including your coworkers, think that anyone who unironically uses the term "midwit" is completely and totally obnoxious. | | |
| ▲ | vehemenz an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | More cringe than obnoxious, but yeah. | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mweh, I'm not a native English speaker. It's a definitely existing archetype, though, just like "Spießbürger" points at a thing in German. | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People who uses the word "obnoxious" are also obnoxious. There are many unpleasant words, you have to use some of them and people don't like any of them. | | |
| ▲ | dml2135 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The word “obnoxious” does not carry the connotation of smug superiority that “midwit” does. | |
| ▲ | nmeagent 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Would you refer to someone as a midwit in a typical office environment and expect your professional reputation to remain intact? If you were to do this on an ongoing basis for whatever reason, how long before you're asked to have a little chat with the folks in HR? Would you then attempt to explain it away as one of those unpleasant words that you just had to use? I want to be there for that conversation. | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Different context, different politeness rules. I bet you're fun at parties. An online forum is a relaxed space, like a town pub. HR isn't breathing down our necks here. Personal attacks are a different sort of thing. Using a word to describe in a comment some abstract situations and kinds of characters you see at the office is not a personal attack. There is not one single discourse norm to rule them all and calling out every little thing as too offensive is just annoying. Yeah, yeah there are no midwits, everyone is a unique little genius flower, yeah. | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Corporate offices are low trust environments where people do not really openly speak directly in any negative way (for basically the reason you've illustrated), so I wouldn't use them as any kind of standard for normal social interaction. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > very competent who know when and how to use it and for what. More productive? Sure, to an extent. Being merely more productive is a tame claim for what some people unashamedly post here | | |
| ▲ | bonoboTP an hour ago | parent [-] | | People apparently can get a very different picture of the same site. Anti-AI people think this site's commenters are mostly pro-AI and vice versa. I'm generally pro-using-AI-in-proper-ways, and mostly have the impression that people on here tend to complain and grumble about AI mostly and are generally skeptical and dismissive of everything which is right in the HN tradition (the famous Dropbox comment etc). Karpathy, Carmack, Terence Tao, Simon Willison etc. are all smart people and manage to use AI effectively and productively because it doesn't hurt their ego. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | aquariusDue 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | meowface an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Everyone I know, including myself, is simultaneously extremely pro-AI and anti-AI for this reason. I always put myself in the shoes of the reader when relaying Claudeslop. I either use it as a reference and write it by hand or make Claude edit it 10+ times until it's conveying only the needed information, and in simple, clear words, and without annoying Claudeisms. |
| |
| ▲ | trueno an hour ago | parent [-] | | we've been calling it meatware at work. i just like dont read peoples md files they send me from claude anymore |
|
|
| ▲ | chii 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| He's basically asking other people to do his job for him, because he knows that the AI doesn't truly do it well enough. I would say to him that if he wants me to do his job, he needs to pay me his salary. |
| |
| ▲ | datakan 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | My VP boss calls me 6 times a day to help him understand his copilot responses and asks why we aren't doing what copilot says we should do. I then have to spend multiple hours explaining why. His peers call him to understand their copilot responses which he then copilots and calls me to help interpret. On and on and on | | |
|
|
| ▲ | lelanthran 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Au psychosis is getting seriously outrageous at this point So... back to a currency backed by gold? |
| |
| ▲ | Kostchei 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As an Au stralian I am offended you went with gold psychosis instead of whatever the aussie zeitgeist is cooking up with extra crazy. Our equivalent of "Florida man" is "queensland man" or "western suburbs man"- about half the country at this point. Its cooked. In all seriousness, actual AI psychosis is my 3rd risk behind 1. public interactive agents and 2. whatever devs are doing with agents to prod | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All that trickles is not slop. | |
| ▲ | richrichardsson 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Aren't you clever knowing the periodic table symbol for gold! Actual Intelligence could grasp this was a simple keytranspose typo... | | |
| ▲ | kruffalon 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I disagree... Actual intelligence might be[0] to know what typos (of any kind) are fun to riff off. Maybe this didn't hit the mark for you, but it got a chuckle out of me (especially considering the last hype before AI was crypto). ----- [0] I don't even try to figure that out anymore, in a few years I'll pick the definition that I think best captures my thoughts | |
| ▲ | dwedge 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > ... See that way too often in comments like this. Anyway, it was pretty likely they knew it was a typo, it was just a funny response. | | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | richrichardsson 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | My mistake, I was under the impression Reddit was the place for facetious "funny" comments. | | |
| ▲ | dwedge 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | LinkedIn is the place for mid-intellectual condescension with an ellipsis at the end. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pringk02 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think you missed that the actual intelligence knew that it was a typo, and that the joke they made riffed on pretending that they did not know. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ForHackernews 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| On the contrary, I kind of love this as form of malicious compliance. I'd wager money that the PO/BAs have been demanding "comprehensive documentation" for a very long time, and now they are getting what they've asked for good and hard. |
|
| ▲ | gjvc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Thankfully I'm a dev and thus aren't in the blast radius of that genius idea yes you are |
|
| ▲ | yourapostasy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| When some people call this "Verification Debt" or something similar, that is setting the Overton Window upon this phenomena adversely upon the verifiers. I call it an application of Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."" Until you put in at least the same amount of energy required to verify the AI output as you are asking others to put in to verify it, the AI output you are wielding must be considered bullshit. Really, it should be based upon the verification requestor's historical trust score and how many human verifiers are looped in. A Verification Tax, so to speak: The energy the creator must spend (Ec) is determined by a function of the number of reviewers requested (N) and the historical trust score of that creator's AI outputs (T). Ec = N * (1 - T) |
