We’re in the same boat, friend. Believe me, I detest the slop as much as you do. However, it is possible to use the LLMs in a way that isn’t miserable for everyone - I’ve been slowly cajoling my coworkers into it. It takes a certain kind of discipline that I haven’t found particularly common from people that just want the robot to “do the thing”.
One of our product people happens to have that discipline. Their PRs are thoughtful and understandable and they take the time to actually understand their changes before slinging them. So, I know it is possible, if rare, currently.
AI should be used to challenge and make a project more difficult but also more rewarding. You can end up with a higher quality product that still takes the same amount or even more time.
But if the only useful approach is built around discipline alone for a tool that is meant to be used for all, isn’t it, at a group level, a failing proposition?
Anecdotal, but the coworkers I know that have the most discipline and care about their output are the ones that use it the least.
My opinion is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. There exists a class of software for which the detriments of using LLMs in a non-disciplined way is kinda irrelevant. Generally, this is the kind of software that isn’t worth the money that would be spent on an actual developer. These would be, like, very small user-base internal applications.
I might also argue against the “meant to be used for all” part of that statement. That’s the way that AI companies - and many execs - are trying to position LLMs, but I don’t think that’s the reality of their usefulness. Kent Beck did a pretty good talk about this recently that I think summarizes the position well. LLMs let you make mistakes in days that used to take months. The corollary to that is that they also enable you to fix those mistakes in days instead of months, but that requires understanding, thought, and patience.
We’re in the same boat, friend. Believe me, I detest the slop as much as you do. However, it is possible to use the LLMs in a way that isn’t miserable for everyone - I’ve been slowly cajoling my coworkers into it. It takes a certain kind of discipline that I haven’t found particularly common from people that just want the robot to “do the thing”.
One of our product people happens to have that discipline. Their PRs are thoughtful and understandable and they take the time to actually understand their changes before slinging them. So, I know it is possible, if rare, currently.
AI should be used to challenge and make a project more difficult but also more rewarding. You can end up with a higher quality product that still takes the same amount or even more time.
But if the only useful approach is built around discipline alone for a tool that is meant to be used for all, isn’t it, at a group level, a failing proposition?
Anecdotal, but the coworkers I know that have the most discipline and care about their output are the ones that use it the least.
Yeah, also anecdotal, but the ones who use it the most at my job are also the most insufferable and have nothing to say during meetings
My opinion is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. There exists a class of software for which the detriments of using LLMs in a non-disciplined way is kinda irrelevant. Generally, this is the kind of software that isn’t worth the money that would be spent on an actual developer. These would be, like, very small user-base internal applications.
I might also argue against the “meant to be used for all” part of that statement. That’s the way that AI companies - and many execs - are trying to position LLMs, but I don’t think that’s the reality of their usefulness. Kent Beck did a pretty good talk about this recently that I think summarizes the position well. LLMs let you make mistakes in days that used to take months. The corollary to that is that they also enable you to fix those mistakes in days instead of months, but that requires understanding, thought, and patience.