alanwreath

Regardless it works enough for me to run local Kubernetes and Tilt

Especially poignant in my home where leaders make corruption===outwitting laws===smart. Perception can lead to widespread adoption.

But I guess if our laws actually held up corruption wouldn’t outwit the laws in the first place.

A definite Uncle!

The US has been security by obscurity in so many ways, this latest abuse is just further evidence that counting on it would only ever delay abuse for [checks calendar] about 250 years.

And really is has been in free fall for decades, the fact that so many recent examples are so flagrant (along with this) is what is upsetting (mainly because no one with any power is moving to stop it in any meaningful way).

They’re in effect saying “nothing else is as powerful as what Anthropic put out”. Even though that might not really be the case it’s what it sounds like.

And the verge is covering it too:

https://www.theverge.com/transportation/956316/ford-quality-...

The script was excellent because it simplified the review process for a single repo (that had many competing dependsbot PR’s) and it also happened to do this across increasingly many many different repo’s simultaneously.

Funny thing is, however, that it also created a team dynamic where who ran the script became almost a race because the effort in creating x pr’s didn’t correspond at all to the effort required to review x pr’s.

The optics were also lopsided since the script would operate on the runner’s local machine and so it would have seemed as if the person who made all these PR’s was highly efficient at producing when in fact it was the reviewer doing the majority of the work.

Also reviewing represented a chunk of a developer’s day so it would affect other actual work the developer was tasked to do anyways.

In an agile workplace points (correctly or not) completed are attributed only to the code creator with no points at all being shared by those who reviewed the work, and rightfully so I’d argue because tangentially reviewers can also tend to just click “approve” (or slap a LGTM) without much effort into critiquing a piece or giving a thoughtful review. Why? It slows down the introduction of the feature (the PM won’t like that, why would you slow down the process eh? You grumpy goose), it messes with team dynamic (you may end up offending those who you review, who also happen to be the one who you need to review your work, who then may be petty or worse, mud slow to review your own PR’s), it takes additional time to provide reviews that seem as if you even read the PR or don’t come off as flippant (did you provide examples or a suggested refactor or detailed reasons), and it takes context because you may be working currently on a totally different project (regardless of your experience/authority in the PR’ed repo), so giving an honest review may sacrifice even more time to first review the purpose of the PR and how that lands in the context of the target repo(s) and then sacrifice the time necessary to reorient yourself to the task you previously had in process. With all this…that “approve” button becomes sooooo tempting.

It’s funny because fast forward some of the ways I battle increasingly prolific AI generated material is through GitHub’s CoPilot bot. I ask it to do the review first and when it gives the review there is none of that dynamic because it wasn’t me who levied the criticism and also it’s not me who is trying to block code integration (so no grumpy goose or team dynamics problems). Having a bot do preliminary checks almost does what git hooks did for team dynamics way back when automation of linting, testing, style, etc was introduced as a common part of the review process. And I say “almost” because a)sometimes the critiques from the bot are wrong and b) the critiques aren’t necessarily deterministic, so just because they are there or not doesn’t mean you are truly relieved of that portion of the review process (for better or worse).

Too true!

> if the business owner is disciplined and prompts it with thought

That’s a big “if”. For now, at least I wonder if conversations change from “I have an idea for an app…” to “I have an app that is having problems…”

Case in point, I had to help him fix an issue where the state was being persisted _in the link_. Not something I expected.

He’s not a software developer, he has no concept of software maintenance or security.

I’ve been watching and it’s interesting to me because I would not be surprised that he’s not alone as a small family business. Many probably feel liberated from company’s that would enforce a certain cookie cutter shape.

Does this mean AI is shifting towards contractor jobs more? Does it mean a huge security issue brewing? Both? Maybe business owners turned SWVibers like him will swing back to an off the shelf option once pouring more effort into 3am-my-stuff-is-broke scenarios becomes more of a chore than it’s worth.

I feel like there are a million billion green field projects brewing that will soon turn brown for one reason or another.

It was a good watch - I appreciated hearing the audible boos. I’m not the only one in the room who is concerned about the adoption of AI being overly cavalier without clear evidence it’s even worth it / or that you go to school and are told great now you MUST learn this, your degree choice (your dream) is moot - the message has been “deal with it”. That’s not to say there isn’t already plenty evidence online that supports the thought, but hearing it from a college campus audience makes me think about what my son is going into right now, that my concern is real.

I’m torn really because I am already benefitting from the tools provided. I can see their utility. And, though, I actually agree with Schmidt’s overall message - it was truthful and felt genuine, it’s an unfortunate reality. Who’s going to cheer that? So good on him for being naive to that fact or willing to endure an obvious boo fest.

AI’s fun but life is more fun. Speed is fun, but so is sitting down for a sec to chat with friends. Maybe the backlash against AI is because we’re still grappling with the onslaught of the internet and smart phones. The unintended negative effects we have yet to solve today (Schmidt even starts his speech referring to them before he brings up AI almost as if to say, “look how well these blunders went, now hold my beer”). Youth and people in general feel robbed, they have become a cog in someone else’s machine and AI doesn’t free you from it - it’s not like businesses are saying “oh excellent! we can get the work done faster, let’s decrease the amount of hours we make people work to get their wage. Let’s let them benefit from this boon of productivity.” No! The opposite, “We will kick you and if you want to stay, be happy you’re here and willing to run in this fever pitch rat race that has just introduced a rapidly increasing devourer that runs behind you.” … “Want weekends!? AI doesn’t, hmm is that the way you ‘demonstrate what it means to be human’?”

My mind keeps on thinking that what I am really being told is it’s time to start my own business because I will only ever be the person to give me a weekend off.

Kraftwerk sounds novel even today, I can’t imagine how it must have sounded 50 years ago.

It really is the only thing that keeps me from them. I’d pay to play quality retro games. Heck it would almost be educational for my kids.

It would seem one of the few occupations where it would not be off putting to have a bigger HMD, especially in the case that you’d probably want the device to have dual purpose. One being that of a dystopian tool, and the other of being protective face covering that you know… you kind of need when you commit your heinous atrocities.

Heck I figure they could go all the way to DaftPunk style masks and it would seem on brand.

They are all still there.

But here’s to hoping that change comes. Apple is already a rich company. But isn’t that boring?