> It's still valuable to deeply understand parts of a program, but we don't have any tooling that helps us do that. We just have to raw-dog it by thinking really really hard and remembering how all the code connects together

Which is frankly exhausting to do when you have to keep up with the rate of LLM changes

▲

__MatrixMan__ 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I can sling code at about 20x speed with an LLM, but I can only understand it well enough to support it at 5x speed and I can only make decisions that won't piss off the rest of the company at about 3x speed. My job as a software engineer is to therefore slow down to working merely 3x faster than before despite the extra headroom that the LLM gives me. Anybody can give into the seduction of new features poorly understood, to be a specialist means to bother spending the extra time.

Or at least that's the current model I'm playing with.

▲

zmmmmm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is my dilemma as well currently, because there's no obvious place to draw that line. The boundaries are all subjectively defined.

I could change a whole UI completely in 30 minutes to something fundamentally better but then 30 people would all wake up and be upset they weren't consulted and need training for it. That training and consultation will take hours and hours. And probably generate feedback - some of it correct, some of it misguided - that needs to be human negotiated, taking more hours. The effective maximum rate of change is limited so dramatically more by other factors than the technical implementation that we have to completely redesign process now to cater to those factors.

We are in a weird space now because most of the process is still built around a presumption that technical implementation is a lot of work. The main reason to be upset that you weren't consulted about a change is because there's a presumption that you will be stuck with it - ie: it's a lot of work to change it back. But it isn't a lot of work, it's effectively free. All this is just living in inertia right now.

	▲	__MatrixMan__ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I've been handling it as a sort of voluntary A/B test. A is what you're used to, B is what I recommend. If I can convince people to start using B instead, I can look at the metrics for A and conclude that it's effectively dead, and then I can remove it. It's working out for me, but maybe not a fair comparison because I only have something like 15 users.