Guy at work proposed AI workflow enhancements...
His whole idea was to take a workflow and just replace a few roles...
Developer becomes "AI developer agent" Reviewer becomes "AI reviewer agent" Tester becomes "AI code testing agent"
Rinse and repeat until the only block that was human was "Marketing Engineer". Guess what department the guy worked in...
Another thing is that it kind of instills a false confidence. Reviewers are getting lazy when the LLM gives a 'LGTM' and letting stuff through that bites us in the ass...
Yep, seen this.
Also, each iteration saying "ok, all problems are now addressed, the check should be fine, but running it just in case" (generates even more build errors than before). Rinse and repeat until my token quota is exhausted and I just code the good old fashioned way, no skin off my back. And I'm doing a 'good job' with utilization, despite having burned most of my quota on a failure that got thrown away.
Which is a stupid mindset.
"Go forth and burn tokens and your performance will be measured on that"
Looks like I'm going to make a for to ask for a for every word in /usr/share/dict/words. Look at all the tokens I burned.
It doesn't reflect upon business value, performance, or education.
It's even worse than the disastrous lines of code metric.
Their problem is they have no idea what to expect, so to signal affinity to hype, they just measure tokens.
Which is insane, as the OS doesn't have any way to authoritatively measure the user's age and so they have to be 'honor system' where the age is whatever the user says the age is, or require some online account with identity validation, which is what facebook tries to do anyway.
Unironically, a bit. These people are pure ego, and being booed is actually a thing they take great offense at
These folks just don't get it.
Let's put aside the discussion of whether their enthusiasm for the tech is merited or not, that is beside the point.
A commencement speaker is not there to talk about themselves or their favorite things. They are not there to teach the graduates anything or try to debate with the graduates.
A commencement speaker is there to honor and respect the graduates. To commend them on how far they have come and express optimism for what they will bring to society in the future. To make them feel appreciated for all they have done and are about to do. To feel inspired by what they have accomplished and the possibilities they bring to society. There has been and will be plenty of opportunity to educate, debate, and convince them, but this is not the venue for any of that.
Speaking about how "awesome" AI is and how they should be grateful for it is disrespecting them by failing to let them be the focus of their own graduation.
designed to respond to the question with some words while not actually answering the question.
Ok, I see why they are so enamored of LLM chat...
It happens, but it generally takes financial failure to drive off the people with pure money motives and yet still be alive enough for interested parties to keep it going out of actual interest and passion.
That's why in most of the examples, the goodness returns after something like a market collapse that scares off the investors leaving only the people with instrinsic interest in doing it right.
Oh sure they have to influence, but I would expect them to do so a bit more on the down low. If they have a whiff of self awareness, they know this will just do more harm than good to their interests.
Which is crazy as they also made a big deal about how many users don't want an AI result and how they are credibly the choice for those people.
I get offering the feature, but insisting upon it while also bragging about how they cater to the majority of respondents that didn't like it is bizarre..
Google at least is consistent, they just plainly act as of the people who dislike it don't exist.