Crane decided to ask his AI agent why it went through with its dastardly database deletion deed. [...] So, the agent ‘knew’ it was in the wrong.
No, you asked the confabulation machine to confabulate a reason/excuse after the fact, and it confabulated something that looks like a reason/excuse. At no point was there knowledge or introspection.
I haven't taken anything out of context. What the poster said was:
roadmap definition was a waste of time
sprint planning was a waste of time
unit tests were a waste of time
code reviews were a waste of time
"etc. etc. etc." was a waste of time
only some people who "knew what they were doing" recognized that all of this was pointless
As for meaningless tests: We are talking about experienced developers (people who know what they are doing), who wouldn't write nonsensical tests like that. And the assertion was that all unit tests, especially ones written by competent programmers, were a waste of time.
Re: code reviews in meetings, I've never seen that. Maybe that explains how you end up with 60% of developer time spent in meetings? Still seems like a crazy high figure to me. Sprint planning (especially with only 2 devs) takes like 30 minutes every two weeks. Hashing out a roadmap isn't too time consuming either (and roadmaps shouldn't radically change from week to week anyway).
None of this makes sense in the context of "agents". The point of having someone else review my code is twofold: To get a sanity check on my work (are there obvious bugs? does the new code fit the architecture of the project? is the code clear/understandable/maintainable? etc.), which helps me improve, and to familiarize another developer with the code, which helps them and spreads knowledge through the team. An LLM has no knowledge and does not learn.
I write and run automated tests because I recognize that even though I think I "know what I am doing", I still make mistakes, and even if the code currently works perfectly, it may not do so in the future when new features are added, bugs fixed, or performance improved. If you were writing pointless tests before, they don't suddenly become meaningful because an LLM is involved.
But what the poster was describing was to outsource code reviews and tests to other LLMs ("reviewer agents", "generating about 10x the tests and documentation"). There is no understanding, no learning, no growth. I don't see how you can call this "efficient" unless your only metric is lines of code per day.
roadmap definition, sprint planning, unit tests, regular independent code reviews, etc. etc. etc. that those of us who “knew what we were doing” mostly looked down on as the waste of time that it was
Does Ruby require the use of [] and {} there? Because those %w/%i/etc things look like custom quoting operators and at least in Perl you can use any delimiter you want: qw(a b c) is a list of strings, but so are qw+a b c+ and qw;a b c;.
@rook @BlueMonday1984 "Live Forever As You Are Now With Alan Resnick"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo
"markdown quotes" 😆
@yogthos
No, you asked the confabulation machine to confabulate a reason/excuse after the fact, and it confabulated something that looks like a reason/excuse. At no point was there knowledge or introspection.
I haven't taken anything out of context. What the poster said was:
As for meaningless tests: We are talking about experienced developers (people who know what they are doing), who wouldn't write nonsensical tests like that. And the assertion was that all unit tests, especially ones written by competent programmers, were a waste of time.
Re: code reviews in meetings, I've never seen that. Maybe that explains how you end up with 60% of developer time spent in meetings? Still seems like a crazy high figure to me. Sprint planning (especially with only 2 devs) takes like 30 minutes every two weeks. Hashing out a roadmap isn't too time consuming either (and roadmaps shouldn't radically change from week to week anyway).
None of this makes sense in the context of "agents". The point of having someone else review my code is twofold: To get a sanity check on my work (are there obvious bugs? does the new code fit the architecture of the project? is the code clear/understandable/maintainable? etc.), which helps me improve, and to familiarize another developer with the code, which helps them and spreads knowledge through the team. An LLM has no knowledge and does not learn.
I write and run automated tests because I recognize that even though I think I "know what I am doing", I still make mistakes, and even if the code currently works perfectly, it may not do so in the future when new features are added, bugs fixed, or performance improved. If you were writing pointless tests before, they don't suddenly become meaningful because an LLM is involved.
But what the poster was describing was to outsource code reviews and tests to other LLMs ("reviewer agents", "generating about 10x the tests and documentation"). There is no understanding, no learning, no growth. I don't see how you can call this "efficient" unless your only metric is lines of code per day.
Do you write your tests in meetings? Do you do code reviews in meetings?
Do you think testing and reviewing code was a waste of time before "AI"?
You sound insane.
Fuck off with that AI shit.
"AI" has also successfully found security vulnerabilities that don't exist.
C++:
[](){}Yes, it's sent to posthog.
That's not what the Github ticket says.
Yes, they do: https://rr-project.org/
https://sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdb.html/Reverse-Execution.html
This is an entirely new way to misuse "strongly typed" that I was not aware of before. Amazing.
Thank you!
I, too, love living in a society that never makes errors, ever, as I myself am quite infallible. https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/
And don't forget how easy it is to reverse them in case of error.
That's just syntax.
Does Ruby require the use of
[]and{}there? Because those%w/%i/etc things look like custom quoting operators and at least in Perl you can use any delimiter you want:qw(a b c)is a list of strings, but so areqw+a b c+andqw;a b c;.#python