Problem is micromanaging executives that are all in and demanding to see some volume of LLM usage the way they think is correct (little prompt, large amounts of code).
Thus practice may be very bad for your health. Not that these "executives" care, but you should.
Yes. And that is how AWS got their 13 hour (?) outage. That outage was probably more expensive than what they can save in cost over a year or several by using LLMs as surrogate coders.
Why stop there? Make it part of the start-up message and if there is none, add one!
Well, the routinely clueless economics graduates certainly think so. My take is that in a few years actually competent coders will be in high demand to fix the mess and out out a lot of fires. When that happens and if you are inclined to participate, make them pay through the nose.
Sounds like very risky behavior. But some people are simply not smart...
It might take one person one year to write 25k lines.
A year? I've regularly written that much in a month, and sometimes in a week. And, counter-intuitively, its during those sprints when I'm pumping out thousands of lines per day that I write the code that turns out to be the highest quality, requiring the fewest number of bugfixes later. I think it's because that very high productivity level can only happen when you're really in the zone, with the whole system held in your head. And when you have that full context, you make fewer mistakes, because mistakes mostly derive from not understanding the other pieces your code is interacting with.
Of course, that kind of focus is exhausting, and you can't do it long term.
How does a person get their head around that in 15 hours?
By focusing on the structure, not the details. The LLM and the compiler and the formatter will get the low-level details right. Your job is to make sure the structure is correct and maintainable, and that the test suites cover all the bases, and then to scan the code for anomalies that make your antennas twitch, then dig into those and start asking questions -- not of product managers and developers, usually, but of the LLM!
But, yeah, it is challenging -- and also strangely addictive. I haven't worked more than 8 hours per day for years, but I find myself working 10+ hours per day on a regular basis, and then pulling out the laptop in bed at 11 PM to check on the last thing I told the AI to do, mostly because it's exhilarating to be able to get so much done, at such high quality, so quickly.
Will probably not take long.
Moving forward, the settlement would "permanently prohibit" Match Group, which owns OkCupid, and Humor Rainbow, which operates OkCupid, from misrepresenting what kind of personal information it collects, the purpose for collecting the data and any consumer choices to prevent data collection.
So basically the FCC said guys, say your really sorry and promise not do it again.
I have no idea what graduates you look at, but this is not the case here (Europe).
The point being...AI doesn't tangibly save time. It might save a bit under some circumstances, but not enough to justify layoffs. The CEOs are full of shit.
Pretty much this. LLMs can be convenient, but they are not magic and that they make competent coders slower is pretty well established by now.
The problem with that is that external pressure to get better is raising, both from reliability requirements and from security requirements. In this case, stagnation means getting worse and worse.
Well, that is certainly what they are planning. Just one problem: The evidence is mounting that LLMs cannot replace competent engineers.
No surprise this idiocy is happening in other areas too. There is a special kind of mental disability you need to have (or acquire) to be an economics graduate: A total inability to see more than a few months into the future and a total inability to do any kind of risk management. It worked? Everything must be more than fine and surely we can do it cheaper, right?
That is why people with critical institutional and technological skills are not treated even remotely at their value, let alone critical for organizational survival. Tech history is full of big names that are not around anymore or only in massively reduced forms. And in most cases, it is because some "managers" did not manage to think.
They had to say it that way, because the more accurate statement is that the dealership law unfairly advantages existing automakers.
Even the entrenched automakers don't want dealerships to exist, they would all prefer to sell directly. They have better ways to keep down competition at the federal level. Dealerships just take a cut of what they could be keeping all of if they didn't exist.
That's a valid point, though right now while they're facing competition from startups the dealerships do provide them with a moat that they want to preserve. If/when the startup threat is gone, the automakers will go back to hating the dealerships.
I think people forget how everyone laughed at Tesla because everyone knew that starting a new car company in the United States was impossible. Now we also have Lucid and Rivian. Maybe someday Aptera will manage to get off the ground. This is a novel situation for American carmakers.
It could. But it could also be completely genuine. There really are people that badly defective and apparently not only a few.
"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354
