serial_dev

They put so much stuff into the URL, usually my user ID, my phone, browser info etc…

I don’t necessarily want the people I share the link with to know my potentially pseudonymous user.

Reminder: ‘the software is provided “as is”…’.

It’s not their problem that you, or anybody else, think you are owed 24/7/365 emergency support.

Gemini also has it all, it learns and knows who you are, you have history of chats where you can just jump back into a conversation a week later if you want to.

Isn’t it because Swift (and SwiftUI, if you used that) changes the recommended approach to solving X every 18 months?

That subreddit is likely an echo chamber.

You would not judge what people think about politics by only reading comments on a Hasan Piker video (or only on a Nick Fuentes video).

I’d believe they accidentally uploaded the wrong files if they uploaded the correct ones. To state that they accidentally uploaded something else and then not upload the correct version means they probably do not have anything and either hope people forget about this or they are scrambling to have something that is at least close to their original claim.

To be fair, they are also different things, though there is certainly overlap...

To me, tech debt, captures the idea that we cut corners now to move faster, with the understanding that it will need to be "re-paid" and cleaned up later, otherwise we take on too much tech debt, and everyone knows too much debt is bad...

AI slop code means people feed their tasks to a model, trust it to drive the changes, they might do some cosmetic clean ups, then generate a 3 pager PR description they didn't even read themselves, then toss it over to the code reviewer, let that chump figure out what the hell I was doing while I ship 3-4 more PRs...

While I don't have the answer, I will leave my thoughts here, maybe my comment helps you or some of the responses might...

I was thinking about this when I tried a faster model (Cursor released something fast about a month ago?). It was such a joy to use (well, at least compared to other models, where you wait 5-10 mins for even simpler tasks), and I noticed I felt much closer to the problems, and I got closer to a "flow" state... ...but unfortunately, the models are faster for a reason, and the output got worse. While I did enjoy my job more, I was also left worried that the model missed important things (and it did when cross referenced with other models or just doing the thinking myself).

IMO we need much faster yet capable models to bring back a bit of a flow state.

Another approach worth trying is to get some agents researching 4-5 tasks thoroughly in the background, discovering all the relevant details, collecting all the files likely to be edited, their content etc..., then work on one thing at a time with a better focus for yourself, maybe use a faster model.

One thing I try to do is code manually if I know that I can be faster and better. It's convenient to stick to one tool, the agents, when editing code, but for smaller clean up tasks, they just never get it right, and sometimes it's better to do 1 min manual work over 5 mins of explaining what you want and the agents still not delivering it...

I’m honestly wondering where this “win in the market with AI” goes for companies. It’s not unique to this place, it’s in every layoff tweet. What’s the strategy? Just “AI harder” than others?

I’m working at an AI pilled company and I just don’t see the gigantic improvements. Not in my work, not in anyone else’s. It’s a great technology, we finish some tasks faster, some tasks really 100x faster, sure, but it’s a <2x improvement at an organization scale. It’s not like suddenly we cleaned out the defect list. It’s not like I can use any app without seeing 5 bugs in the first five minutes. It’s not like I got any meaningful new features.

30% open rate, huge success! Yeah because I keep clicking on it accidentally!!

Oh I got an email about a booked flight, Europe, Denver, Vegas. For some reason the times weren’t picked up in my calendar so I naively thought I’ll try their AI tools to put it there…

I tried to get it to work for five minutes, it couldn’t get it to work.

Then I was so pissed that tried for another thirty minutes to “prompt” my way to get the events created correctly, highlighted the timezone issues…

Then gave up and did it manually in 2 minutes.

The most annoying thing I noticed about Google trying to shoehorn “AI magic” into their products is Google Maps. I try to help someone navigate with a child in the backseat and they shoveled an AI button into their UI that is even active when you are navigating… Annoyed me so much. I already picked the supermarket I want to go to, now just get out of my way and get me there.

Cigarette manufacturer's research concluded smoking is a-okay for you. AI slop peddler CEO says, if you don't buy their stuff, you will be left behind. Biotech company says taking their pills can be only good for you.

This lady says you should let your children get hooked on YouTube, who knows what could happen if you don't!

Looks like biased research, fake coverage amplifies it, it's all manufacturing consent.

It’s just shows that fact-checking is not a thing for 99% of the cases. It’s interesting to see it in LLMs, but it’s not unique to them.

The “fact checkers” pretend they are objective and authoritative, but they are not, they are just one more opinion.

For the research, the four classification options are too many, it should be true, false, and maybe “can’t be determined”.

Then it’s a perfect embodiment of the AI era. You’ll read the slop and you’ll like it!

"Dear LLM, we stole this and bundled it up for you, so that it's more convenient for you to steal the original authors' work, so please donate" just kidding of course, don't send a hitman my way.

IMO they cannot let OpenAI fail.

It's not only an AI company, it's the symbol of AI hype. This AI hype is significant part of the US economy, and the AI infrastructure spending basically half of its growth.

("it's not this it's that", I swear it's human generated slop)

I'm not saying that they definitely did not do it on purpose, it's possible, I am saying that a simple with/without updates check doesn't prove they did it on purpose.

In my own experience, newer products get more love automatically, because the testers, the devs, the team are on newer devices. Perf regressions are also harder to catch than simpler bugs and sometimes require extended usage to notice smaller perf degradation, and devs and QA do not really test like that (often enough).

The way I see it, older products will naturally decline with updates, as they are less of a focus while validating a new release. Sure, they get some "freebie" improvements, but I'm guessing the accidental "decay" outweighs any improvements.

I'm not saying they couldn't make it on purpose. I'm saying that (IMO) it's more likely that it gets worse with every update even without malicious, conniving people trying to get you to upgrade by worsening your OS.

Your experiment would not prove that they are deliberately slowing older phones via updates. That's big part of the claim. Your experiment would only show that as you update, your old phones will get slower and slower.

I wouldn't be surprised older phones get slower with updates, in fact, that feels like the most likely scenario for me, based on my experience as a software developer.

But IMO, Hanlon's (maybe Occam's, too?) Razor applies. Most likely, the teams just need to ship features, make fixes, and they mostly test on higher end, recent devices. Sure, at some point, someone tests on a lower end device that everything still works, but they probably either do not notice the issues, or shrug it off, or rationalize it (it might make x worse, but users get y in exchange, so it's fine).

They are both snakes (IMO), but they are different kinds of snakes. I can see why to some Sam is acceptable while Elon wouldn’t be (and vice versa). It’s also convenient to be more lenient toward the snake’s shortcomings when you becoming extremely rich depends on it.

“Nobody could have seen this coming…”?

Well apparently a lot of people did. Maybe Jarred didn’t, maybe you didn’t, but most people correctly predicted what was coming.

Answering “who is even using this software” is unfortunately missing in your answer. I am honestly curious. I’ve never seen it “in the wild” (in job descriptions, hearing from past colleagues, meetups etc). Only place I heard about it is HN and Twitter.

I wonder if the whole acquisition was done so that they have guinea pigs that can’t say no…

or if I want to be cynical… so that they have a big enough project where they can force gigantic rewrites without considering the outcome from the project’s point of view, all so that they can fuel their marketing strategy.

To be honest, kind of obvious looking back.

In my experience, the bots match your energy, so they can certainly talk like that.

Of course it can still be fake.

Sure, of course, it didn’t “break Bitcoin”.

But from this person’s perspective: without Claude 0 BTC recovered in x years, with Claude 5 BTC recovered in x hours.

Just one more alternative interpretation… I thought it’s about systems calling into other systems, making everything slower, more complicated and brittle…

But maybe it’s about discussing an issue with 10 other people from different teams when it’s not necessary.

But we will never now. I guess OP didn’t want to pay the communication tax on expressing this idea clearly :)

Or Chromebook? It’s the same with the messengers, they can’t settle on a single brand.

I feel similarly. I wanted to develop software, I didn’t want to “program”. I want my code to fix problems, I want the end result to feel great to use, I want it to be able to fix problems and feel great a year from now, too.

I want to be better month after month, I want to be able to discover new areas.

Using AI tools makes sense to me. It’s important that you don’t believe everything the hype men are telling on Twitter, but it would also be a mistake to believe there is nothing valuable in this technology.

I disagree, the discussion is still interesting to me. The page might be low quality AI slop (though it claims it’s not), I did find the discussion about it informative to a degree.

We need to demand better from our coworkers and from ourself.

Young "AI native" coworker opens PRs with 3 screen slop description, I flagged that "I know he ain't reading all that, and therefore I ain't reading all that", so he should just give a max half-screen overview. I expect that the PR description makes sense, is correct, and have been reviewed by the person opening the PR. You can still use agents for that, but at least there is a chance with shorter descriptions that it's not completely bs.