IME if anything, people are relying on LLMs for ops more than for development! Devops convinced management that ops isn't actually all that valuable and that devs can just do it. IaC is usually a mess of boring YAML based syntax that no one in their right mind want to learn anyway. Learning Ansible doesn't feel like a transferable skill unlike learning a programming language or paradigm, and in most teams the quality of the IaC stuff (abstraction, code reuse etc.) never mattered much.
As soon as LLMs became good, generating IaC stuff was like the first thing to go full vibe coding, at least for me. I'm proud of my craft, I don't produce bad code with my name on it, I very carefully review all the code changes etc. Devops YAML stuff? Couldn't care less.
Why are you still employed? What do you bring to the table if you’ve off loaded so much to AI that you can no longer review a pull request…?
What more needs to happen before you accept that human review does not catch all the bugs that AI does?
For now. Wait until we start hearing things like "Mythos reverse-engineered Apple ARM architecture and implemented the whole roadmap of the Asahi Project".
Some people have asked me, aren't you afraid you'll make a mistake if you fix your own car? Well, aren't they afraid their mechanic will make a mistake?
I think it's good to realize that AI (famously) also makes mistakes, and not to infantilize yourself to the level of not feeling "comfortable" trusting your own thinking.
Though, I do see younger people today whipping out their phone calculator to "double check" something like a 75% increase on 120.
Yes, of course. Why wouldn't I be?
Everybody makes mistakes, and of course tools to prevent that are good. But what you're saying makes no sense, have you never written code without using type checking or static analysis?
Sometimes good enough is good enough, it's silly to think that a word without bugs is even possible. And besides, using LLMs to get there is a fallacy in itself, because it's a fundamentally non-deterministic system.
Amusingly, I did the same and it told me there's no point in taking more than a single dose in my uncomplicated case (prophylactically).
it is a bit sad comparing that to "I can't check for bugs without an AI", though.
Imagine we had an AI system that could monitor 38 different patient signals (from blood pressure electrical activity in the brain) during a surgery and give the surgeon warnings whenever these drifted out of the expected range. It feels plausible to me that using such a system might improve surgery outcomes by, say, 20%.
I would prefer to have a surgeon who used the AI assistant rather than a surgeon who chose not to.
Claude is going to write a banger medical drama about this