| |
| ▲ | gessha 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve been going back and forth between opus and local Qwen 27B and a good number of times opus makes absolutely stupid things compared to Qwen. For a large number of tasks you definitely don’t need a frontier model but a good harness around it. If you don’t can’t/want to experiment with local model, have Claude implement the exact same feature with haiku/sonnet/opus and see what the differences are. You might be surprised. | |
| ▲ | nicce an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you were to take away my work's $500 budget for Opus 5.5 and replace it with unlimited use of GLM-5.3, it would be a huge downgrade in my opinion. I am perfectly able to do the tasks with own custom harness and unlimited local Qwen 3.8 27B with 150t/s. Harness needs search capability and more fine-tuning for the job. You need less words to describe the intent with Astra/Opus 5.5, and it automatically usually observes the best practice that you don't need to explicitly tell, but with only a slight more effort you can get the job done. I have even made security audits with Qwen 3.8 27B against projects fully written with Claude Opus and it is a bit mind-boggling, but there have been tens of vulnerabilities, identified by this model alone. This excludes the issues found when guiding more myself. | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The thing is the have been told to use the tokens wisely, but no limit is communicated. Still everybody is hesitant. To be fair, the company runs claude on AWS bedrock for data privacy requirements at a different pricelevel. But I guess that is the drawback for german job-security: each and all of them know they basically can't get laid off. I also attribute a lot of it to be just plain outright denial. I have a feeling a lot of people don't WANT to understand that their coding skills they acquired over years have dropped a lot in worth. It is the "as long as I don't step on a scale, I can't be overweight" kind of denial. You are afraid to see what is behind the curtain, so you simply don't do it. | | |
| ▲ | ifwinterco 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That's the problem then - if the actual amount the company wants each employee to spend is maximum €200/mo, $500/mo or whatever then the company should set that as a limit and people will use it. Saying "you can use as much as you want but don't use too much or you'll get in trouble" is obviously confusing and is going to result in most people barely using it | |
| ▲ | yfw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What exactly is the skill you acquire by using more AI? If the models get smarter, isnt it a waste of time to get good at the current gen? | | |
| ▲ | kragen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm probably a worse programmer than I was before I started using frontier AI models, in the sense that I probably have a harder time reading, writing, and debugging code. And I doubt that my knowledge of the AI models themselves will have lasting practical value. But, because of the explorations I've done with them, I know substantially more about input method APIs, UEFI, PCIDs, seL4, WebAssembly, GLSL, Service Workers, CORS, server-sent events, CSS, content-security policies, memory-hard PBKDFs, Android, numerical integration, Verilog, V8 security, Linux process namespaces, hypervisors with VT-x, multitouch user interface design, radio communications theory, power electronics, TypeScript, physical-layer communications protocols, NTSC video signals, TLA+, bounded model checking, Rust, generative testing, theorem provers, FPGAs, Linux system call overhead, Unix mailbox formats, physical modeling synthesis, damped resonance, KaTeX, geology, dishwashing detergent, microbiology, Cyclone, thermodynamics, X-Windows, localStorage, AVX, Excel, and IndexedDB, for example. Most of these are things I knew very little about before, so I may not know much about then now, but it's enormously more than I did. Aside from being very pleasurable, I have the impression that this knowledge is valuable in designing systems whose implementation I can then elicit from an AI model. I don't know how long the knowledge will remain instrumentally valuable. Possibly a year from now, we'll all be dead, or slaves to Sam Altman. Or the AIs will be so much better at designing the systems we would have wanted to design, if we were smarter and knew more, that there's no instrumental value in humans doing it. Or, less drastically, maybe a new AI-written software platform will have so completely displaced Android and the browser platform that there's no value in knowing what they do and don't permit. Like knowing the ins and outs of PHIGS, INFORMIX-ONLINE, or CORBA. (Thermodynamics is probably safe, though.) But it seems like, in the less insane possible futures, a lot of this knowledge will remain empowering for some time. | | |
| ▲ | altcognito an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think this comment does a good job of explaining how the breadth of what software engineers do is going to change even more. And again, we are still early. Find a domain to work in! | | |
| ▲ | kragen an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't know, this might be year #81 of the 82 years in which humans create software. Or it might be year #81 of 82 billion years. Anybody who tells you they know what's going to happen is full of shit. | | |
| ▲ | zulux 11 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I do know it's year 1 of n of me being crazy productive. I was already a good developer. Turns out I'm a damn good business analyst/bot farmer/and developer. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The skill of getting familiar with AI use, how to use it, when to use, learning when NOT to use it, is the skill that will land you your next job. Or would you in 2030 expect to hire software devs that never touched AI? | |
| ▲ | fifilura 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You get better at building things - asking the right questions at the right time, knowing what to trust and what to look into. Not very different from managing a team, just without the human problems. |
| |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But I guess that is the drawback for german job-security: each and all of them know they basically can't get laid off. Help me understand what exactly is the drawback you’re mentioning. In your previous comment you were suggesting these people spend their own personal money and personal time on projects to benefit their work time. They (quite reasonably, it seems from the limited context) decided that no, they won’t dedicate life and resources from outside work to more work. Fortunately, it seems they have some job security (German, but probably some from the EU as well) which allows them to make whatever choice they believe is healthier to them, without fearing repercussions. What’s the drawback? | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No you misunderstood my comment. I suggested they spent their private money - 20€ a month for the lowest Max flatrate tier - because to me it is obvious that you absolutely need to develop the skill to work with AI. They only have the "pay-per-token" model on their work accounts and laptops, because that is what large corporations get - no flatrate. That leads them to not work with AI. Most of them just refuse to get that 20€/month subscription to experiment with it on their private laptops. I didn't say private time - company policy is no US cloud services for work related topics so they would have to install it on their private computers. They totally could work on toy projects during their time, as the team is in homeoffice a couple a days per week. I mean the drawback is none as long as they have job security. Unless you realize you work for a public entity that is paid for by the tax payer. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thank you for attempting to clarify, but it doesn’t seem to me like I misunderstood the first time. Seems you are indeed suggesting they spend their own personal money and hardware for a skill to be used on work time, and that they use their work time for personal projects to ultimately benefit that work time. It seems reasonable to me, and societally positive, that people have the freedom to choose to not do that. I don’t see how working for a public entity is relevant. If anything, I sure hope (but I’m not deluding myself) the people who work for public entities work slowly, deliberately, and methodically. The last thing I want from public entities is a focus on “velocity” and merging code the authors don’t understand. | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > and that they use their work time for personal projects to ultimately benefit that work time. That is exactly what I am saying and I would advise them. If you are early 20s right now and a software dev, just waiting for your employer (a large, slow enterprise) to train you an AI seems like a career killer. The whole attitude of "I landed a job with job security, so I am not doing a thing more than I have to" is what drives germany into the ground... | | |
| ▲ | latexr 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > "I landed a job with job security, so I am not doing a thing more than I have to" is what drives germany into the ground... That seems strange to me. A country is made of people, and people are more than their jobs. The fixation on work above everything to benefit an entity whose only purpose is to make money and that would chew and spit you out at the first opportunity seems unhealthy to me. I’d much rather we worked on making the people happy and not concentrate so much wealth in the hands of a few, that seems to me like a better way to improve a country. But hey, happy to disagree. Thank you for engaging and expressing and clarifying your views. | | |
| ▲ | littlecranky67 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | But why should pay everyone else for a lazy/inefficient person? Because that what the salary a person becomes is: someone elses money. |
|
| |
| ▲ | vel0city 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I used an immense amount of personal time and money to make me a better employee, it was called getting a degree from a university. I still sometimes spend a bit of personal money and time to tinker with technology, sometimes on the basis that it'll probably be good to know some of this stuff. It's like being surprised a chef likes to experiment a bit in their kitchen at home. Their point is with total job security there's no real drive to actually be good at your job and little incentive to improve. Just be good enough to not be labeled entirely incompetent and truly unfit for the job, not any better. Would you go to a doctor who hasn't bothered learning anything new about medicine for decades and still practices like it's the 1950s, or one which continually evolved their practice to stick with modern times? Would you want to go to a doctor who truly didn't care about being a halfway decent doctor? Would you prefer a policeman who truly didn't care about being a halfway decent policeman? Teachers who just don't care about being decent at teaching, only the bare minimum to not get fired? | | |
| ▲ | latexr an hour ago | parent [-] | | > I used an immense amount of personal time and money to make me a better employee, it was called getting a degree from a university. You went to university to become a better employee?! Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I find that notion profoundly sad. Most people I interacted with in college did it for the experience, and I’m happy to report many are better people for it. But hey, I’m not going to criticise you for doing that, you made your choice about what was right for you and that’s all I’m saying, that it is a good thing that people
Have that choice. It’s good that you can do that if you want but also not do that if you don’t want. > I still sometimes spend a bit of personal money and time to tinker with technology So do I. And it’s always best when I can decide to do it or not do it, depending on the rest of the context in my life. > It's like being surprised a chef likes to experiment a bit in their kitchen at home. No, no, it’s nothing like that. Because I’m not at all surprised that people do it (like I said, I do it myself), all I’m saying is that it seems positive to me that you have the choice. > Their point is with total job security there's no real drive to actually be good at your job and little incentive to improve. Aren’t you yourself proof that that is not true? And nothing indicates those people aren’t getting better, they’re just not doing the specific thing the other person suggested as a means to that end. That’s not at all the same thing. > Would you go to a doctor who hasn't bothered learning anything new about medicine for decades and still practices like it's the 1950s, or one which continually evolved their practice to stick with modern times? Ooh, boy. If you think most doctors out there are continually improving, I have some very bad news for you. Those who do are the exception, not the norm. Also, 1950s? Come on, let’s please make coherent arguments. That would mean they’d been practicing for seven decades, making them close to centenarian. If such a doctor is still able to stand and be rational and practice medicine coherently, you should at least be curious about listening. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city an hour ago | parent [-] | | > You went to university to become a better employee?! Not the sole reason, no. But it's not like that wasn't a reason, it was certainly a big one. And that's an incredibly common reason to go. And no, I didn't even get a degree in the field I'm working in currently, but the things I learned getting the degree have definitely helped me be far more effective at work. > Aren’t you yourself proof that that is not true? No, because I'm not a government employee with near total job certainty. If I'm not keeping up, I'm falling behind, and will likely find myself replaced in short order. There are millions of people in the world who can do what I do, and what I do can be done practically anywhere there's a data signal. But make me a government employee who practically can never be fired, well, that sure changes incentives doesn't it. Why spend any second to improve when there's no downside to stagnate? > nothing indicates those people aren’t getting better, they’re just not doing the specific thing the other person suggested as a means to that end. That’s not at all the same thing. Sure. Believe what you will. I've worked with countless people who have this mentality. Giving these people more job security guarantees they'll care even less about their job performance and growth. Having the job is 100% about getting a check on the pay period, not about actually doing anything useful. If someone doesn't think €20 and a few hours spread over a month isn't worth it to be better at their job, I can't imagine they're really working hard at improving any other ways. > If you think most doctors out there are continually improving I don't think that. I agree many stagnate. And I usually choose to avoid those which seem to be stagnating. Is it a good thing so many in that industry stagnate? So much better for everyone isn't it, having nearly incompetent doctors everywhere. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It’s honestly a bit hard to continue the conversation with you, because it already seemed to me like some of your arguments where bordering on bad faith in the previous comment (but I gave you the benefit of the doubt) and I get that impression in this comment as well. But I don’t want to have an internet argument, I don’t care about “winning”, I want to have a conversation. I sometimes fail at that and I don’t like when that happens, so I’ll try to cover broad strokes instead of quoting specific sections. You seem to be suggesting that being a government employee gives you near total job certainty and that to have that job security you need to be a government employee. That is not the case. At all. Maybe where you live, but certainly not everywhere. And yes, I am keenly aware of highly incompetent people (in healthcare no less!) who have job security. Is that a good situation? No. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making it a free-for-all where everyone is stressed all the time and can be kicked to the curb on a whim isn’t a better way to properly advance a society. Not if you care about something other than the unfettered pursuit of profit, anyway, and I believe we should care about more than that. Because you edited your previous post, I’ll point out that I find the new examples (teachers and cops) to be even worse. Policemen are notorious for abuses of powers with no repercussions, I honestly don’t know what to tell you if you’re not aware of that. Teachers get the short end of the stick, and the best ones are seldom recognised. Again, if you're not aware of that I’m not really sure what to tell you. Also, of course it’s not good to have incompetent doctors, and of course that was not the argument. I invite you to steel man if you want to have a productive conversation. Nowhere am I saying unrestricted job security is the right solution, I am instead pointing out that giving all the power to the employer causes worse problems, and that in general we should care about people’s well-being instead of trying to “advance” and being afraid of “being left behind” all the time. That’s not healthy, and it is stupid to chase “progress” if not to improve lives. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The whole attitude of "I landed a job with job security, so I am not doing a thing more than I have to" is what drives germany into the ground I'm not in Germany, but I definitely see this attitude in lots of positions in what I see as jobs with excessive job security. > Policemen are notorious for abuses of powers with no repercussions So wouldn't it be good if they potentially had less job security so they'd actually face some real repercussions for their bad actions? Instead they often have some of the strongest job protections out there. They can sometimes even murder people and still collect a full paycheck while cooling off for a few weeks. > Teachers get the short end of the stick, and the best ones are seldom recognised I agree. And once again, lots of job security programs ensure the ones continuing to scrape by get promoted and kept while those actually trying just face burn out. I definitely think teachers in general should be paid more and should have good incentive systems (of which there are lots of bad incentive systems, it's a tricky thing to do well in this space). > in general we should care about people’s well-being instead of trying to “advance” and being afraid of “being left behind” all the time. I truly do agree we should try and have a good balance of work/life, and I do agree tons of people in places like the US are way too overly focused on the work side of that. I'm just pointing out when you focus too much on the other side, all your industries are no longer competitive on the global marketplace and you'll find yourself a lot worse off. Having people who aren't effectively incentivized to improve (for whatever improve means in context) is not a good thing, I think we can both agree on that. FWIW, that kind of near total job security leading to not caring about improving isn't inherently a government job kind of thing. I've known lots of people in private industry be effectively the same. The real connection is places with extreme bureaucracy. And I'm definitely not trying to bash all government employees, many truly are hard workers who care. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wieieie 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
