upvote

points

by chmod77523 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby seventhtiger22 hours ago|
next
[-]
When you criticize AI, always remember that the alternative is the average employee. Today's models are pretty good.
reply
upvoteby devin22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A lot of people think they're above average. A lot of them are wrong.

A lot of average people are producing gigantic messes. At least previous to this they were gated by their mediocrity.

reply
upvoteby Frieren13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> the alternative is the average employee. Today's models are pretty good.

I have never seen anywhere in the world people that hates so much the working class as people do in the USA.

In my country the average employee is competent, they do their work and create wealth for the nation.

Again, only in the USA people think that billionaires are the ones creating value. Total non-sense indoctrination.

reply
upvoteby seventhtiger7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not American or ever worked in the USA. It's not a judgement of human value. It's a judgement of work output.
reply
upvoteby partyficial1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
when you criticize the average employee, always remember that the alternative is the average employee with AI.
reply
upvoteby gamerslexus10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
To adequately validate work you must be at least at the same level, so if you were right (which dunning-kruger suggests unlikely) that would mean your "terrible" average employee is given a tool that will 10x their output which they cannot even check for correctness. And correctness will be low if the average employee is bad like you say, because it means they will give badly specified tasks and even with the best of us it's garbage in, garbage out. I am sure there is no way this can backfire.
reply
upvoteby seventhtiger7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
All enablers also enable mediocrity. That's not new. At least when the non-mediocre engineer has to work with someone, they can have a tireless responsive partner.

I find this varies by individual, but the AI taking care of so much boilerplate and rote work of coding, and taking the role of architect, test designer, and reviewer is a lot more productive for me. Check the code may take the same skill, but it's an order of magnitude less work.

reply
upvoteby gamerslexus4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Perhaps if you need that much boilerplate it's not going to be a well-architected codebase in the first place. Abstract it out, make a lib out of it. Easier to review & test in separation. Loose coupling, high cohesion.
reply
upvoteby cyh55514 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
and have they totally got rid of the average employees? They can blame the models for the production outages already?
reply
upvoteby djeastm22 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I remember hearing (perhaps last year?) that the model companies have specifically tried to obfuscate the "thinking/reasoning" behind the decisions the models make so as to prevent cheaper models from training on the reasoning logs. So asking one "why did you do it like this" might be not fruitful.

Not sure if that's true or if it might be influencing what you're seeing, but it's a thought.

reply
upvoteby NewsaHackO21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think that has to do more with the thinking "train of thought" that some models show as what the model is processing before making the response. There shouldn't be a distillation risk with actually asking the model to explain why it made a decision and getting the response.
reply
upvoteby saulpw23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
This has happened to me, so I put this in my global CLAUDE.md, and it seems to help (I don't remember getting the response you mentioned for awhile now):

    **Lead with the answer when asked how/which/whether.** Name the command/mechanism first; a question seeking understanding isn't a go-ahead to execute. Answer, then offer to act.
reply
upvoteby dmayle22 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
That's because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what an LLM is. The only correct answer to "Why did you do it like this?" is that the specific combination of input text and RNG state caused this particular output. There's no reasoning to be had.

* EDIT * What's with the downvoting? That's a correct description of what happened. You can't ask an LLM why it did something and expect a coherent response, because there's no thinking chain, and no stored thinking state... At best, you can get a reconstruction of how the context relates to the output (basically a summarization of the context).

reply
upvoteby baggy_trough23 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Can't remember the last time that happened.
reply
upvoteby javier222 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Happened to me at least three times the past 14 days. I point out where it made a design decision that causes data loss. «Oops my mistake»
reply
upvoteby theshackleford10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I encounter it constantly with the latest models. Claude is particularly prone to it.

> I shouldn’t have said that with confidence

> I got ahead of myself there

> I overstepped, allow me to correct that

It’s wild seeing how often it’s wrong, and I only know it’s wrong because I am an SME or actually reading the sources. Most of my coworkers are not SMEs with what they are asking and do not read the sources.

A huge part of my job now is fixing fuck ups and failures resulting from these slop jockeys who have already moved on to slop up the next task.

reply
upvoteby therealdrag014 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
So what? That doesn’t negate the value they provide.
reply