Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoppp | Hacker News Reader

George, Ray, Agatha... Ok As long as you are the only one managing these systems. But the moment you involve other people, this is the worst naming possible.

View on HN

If a new hire can handle "Talk to George, he's our security guy" then "Talk to George, it's our security LLM" shouldn't be that much harder?

I think the natural expectation is that someone named George is a human being.

So? It's a little eccentric, but plenty of people give names like this to their computers, cars, boats, pets, etc. and no one seems to struggle with that.

Or a monkey. Or a car (when I was a kid one of our cars was called George.)

Human names need meta data. People see the job title of "head of security research" in Workday or Slack.

For new hires (or people in other orgs), shouldn't need long product descriptions trying to explain team lingo means.

Maybe at a large company that's the case, but plenty of mid-sized offices will tell you "oh, everyone knows Susan is the one you talk to about security code" even though Susan's title is just "programmer" like everyone else.

It's not like a list of six LLM sub-agents is difficult to hand out, and there's even a public blog post detailing the names, specializations, and rationale for this in case you somehow forget and can't just /list-agents or whatever.

all big companies used to be small companies. I once worked at a company where the original developers thought it would be cute to name everything star wars themed.

Give George a phone number then and let me call him on the phone.

If they have non-descriptive human names, they should behave like people.

- Our payment system is down - Call George on the Phone and ask him to fix it..

I dunno, I think it works in any organisation small enough to only have a small number of any given thing. One you start having fleets of servers then you’ve got to switch to fleet naming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com