https://getdx.com/blog/ai-productivity-gains-are-10-percent-...
But I spent a lot of time in the second half of this week dealing with friction with a team that is very annoyed that I'm moving fast and using an agile methodology so I can't tell them the exact, precise REST calls that I'm going to have for them in six months designed to a tee and signed off in triplicate before they start development against it. Manifesting that increase in code production as real value to the business is going to take more from me than just spewing the code out more quickly.
AI isn't creating this problem. I would have had this problem anyhow even if I were writing all the code by hand again. I know, because I've been there before. But the increased velocity is manifesting in increased organizational stress and not just increased velocity.
AI is perhaps even helping solve it to some degree, though far from totally. I have written before about how people eventually learned not to play the "oh well we can't do this until we have documentation" card on me [1]. This week they played the "well, I see you have docs but they aren't in our precise format". Guess what AI can do in about 15 minutes really well? You may recall the term "style transfer" getting tossed about a lot 3-4 years ago, and it is still something AI is extremely good at, and "take these docs in this format and convert them to that format" is just a style-transfer problem. AI really does chew at the "oh but we need docs" old-school card... and they can't even complain about the quality of the AI docs because in order to do that, they'd have to actually read them, and that is not the point of the "but we need docs" card, you see....
You can think of it as an impedance mismatch, or as a translation problem. But no matter how you think about it, it's real, and it's a problem - especially if upper management lives on the non-agile side of the fence.
Although the botlickers will find this hard to believe, nothing has happened this year to make we skeptics -- like me, and like the author of this piece, who is for clarity not me -- change our minds.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence.
> Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence.
You don't seem particularly interested in changing your mind
I want evidence to consider changing. Why should I? Because someone somewhere found a tool useful? Because they are big names? That's argument from authority. I don't buy it.
I need compelling reasons. I have yet to see any. All I see is a lot of people jumping on bandwagons.
Recently I got it to help me explore and compare curve smoothing algorithms and it helped me to test my own formulations that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and converged on computing segments of:
||T(s)-T(t)||^2. / |s-t|^3, where s and t are arc length indices, and we sum over multiple scales of offsets and where T is the (unit) tangent of the curve.
Just because that doesn't involve you means its not useful? Its ability to give highly bespoke scripts makes it far more useful to me than hiring an opinionated software developer!!!!!
You have to think about the big picture. Otherwise, the picture goes out.
1. LLMs are profoundly, inexcusably unethical.
2. The kind of software and tools one can build with LLMs might be better off not built at all.
These sorts of thoughts seem to blow people's minds. Well, tough. Get used to having a bigger mind.