I don’t know how to explain to people that just because certain things appear to approximately work doesn’t mean they actually work. This was already horrifically difficult before AI and now it’s damn near impossible to get the point across when literally any trivial example passes muster
The asymmetry between me having to provide a compelling defence that they can actually understand (without the required background knowledge) vs them being able to endlessly generate garbage in seconds is just… exhausting
@hazelweakly It's all very tedious, but the DevOps movement did prepare some ground for us.
T: "I built a thing (with my magic coding assistant, I can't explain it, which is why it's magic)"
Y: "neat - 'you build it, you run it'"
T (a while later): "the magic coding assistant said stuff that I don't understand"
Y: "that sounds like a you problem rather than a me problem"
Or for the proper grown up version we can play by SRE rules...
T: "I built a thing (with my magic coding assistant, I can't explain it, which is why it's magic)"
Y: "OK, let's agree some SLOs and error budgets, and the underlying metrics that we'll track to feed those"
T: "why are you making me do work?"
Y: "so that we both know when it's working?"
@cpswan @hazelweakly Even before the LLMs(AI), the average software development team these days never uses the word, "analysis", and "design" is only about graphical output. #sigh
