I really don't see the correlation, actually. On the contrary, I'm finding nasty defects with it that have been dormant for long and handwaved away, with repros to reveal them.
replyIt's been full speed downhill for many years, and the failure modes are pretty distinct.
Using LLMs properly leads to better software, not just more of it.
reply> Using LLMs properly leads to better software, not just more of it.
replyCurrent industry best practice is to use LLMs improperly.
How do you use LLMs properly?
replyWith engineering rigor. They are fantastic tools for quickly navigating large codebases, ingesting large amounts of data, refactoring legacy code, compiling multiple formats of data, following defined patterns, and many other proper uses for the tools.
replyThat doesn’t mean the code/result doesn’t still need to meet our engineering standards.
Hopefully the people who feel that way are already close to retirement, so the choice won't have to be made for them.
reply> Hopefully the people who feel that way are already close to retirement, so the choice won't have to be made for them.
replyOne of the best ways to deal with doing something the wrong way is to get rid of all the people who know how to do it correctly. That way no one knows any better, so no one has to confront the fact they're actually doing it wrong.
It's the same with layoffs: there's always a top comment trying very hard to convince everybody that AI usage has played no part.
replyWell no, Windows has been more or less all downhill since Vista.
reply