I'm a big fan of this explanation/rant from Andrew Murphy.
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.The problem AI is meant to solve is wages.
They don't care if quality sucks, if they can avoid paying wages.
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer
WAS not the problem. 🫠 -
The good news is :
Open source maintainers see an increase in the quality of AI security tools, it will soon be in the hands of the bad actors.
Then it will be mandatory to do good software and ( i will make the leap of faith that ) you have to understand the business needs to create a simple software that handle the issues.
30 years ago I taught Structured Systems Analysis and Design classes and consulted on client projects using the CASE (computer aided software engineering AKA data and process modeling software) tool I resold.
The core purpose was to ensure a joint correct understanding with the business of the requirements new or purchased software (components) needed to meet and designing clean and supportable software to implement those requirements.
You won't be shocked to learn ...
@elizayer -
30 years ago I taught Structured Systems Analysis and Design classes and consulted on client projects using the CASE (computer aided software engineering AKA data and process modeling software) tool I resold.
The core purpose was to ensure a joint correct understanding with the business of the requirements new or purchased software (components) needed to meet and designing clean and supportable software to implement those requirements.
You won't be shocked to learn ...
@elizayerthat upper management never caught on to the superior effectiveness and efficiency of building the correct solution the first time despite not a line of code getting written for many months.
I did a BPR project ( I didn't know it was a BPR project as the book hadn't been written yet) to migrate a smallish non-profit from a cranky and poorly designed mainframe system to client server.
We spent 9 months modeling the requirements and ... -
that upper management never caught on to the superior effectiveness and efficiency of building the correct solution the first time despite not a line of code getting written for many months.
I did a BPR project ( I didn't know it was a BPR project as the book hadn't been written yet) to migrate a smallish non-profit from a cranky and poorly designed mainframe system to client server.
We spent 9 months modeling the requirements and ...system design.
It took us 2 months and change to code 90% of the requirements. Rolled it out and completely reorganized their workflow without a serious issue.
They ran on that Paradox for DOS system for many years and grew their business throughout without the need to expand their core staff while supplying greatly enhanced service to their customers.They're still out there - https://www.cgfns.org/
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer I had been looking at a reply to another post in your thread, I was trying to square my agreement with the anti-AI-fad sentiment with the fact that I don't want to bring telephone switchboard operators back. This gets right at it, thank you!
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer It's yet another attempt to make coding work for folks who lack logical rigor, by adding another layer of abstraction. The results are predictable.
-
@robtherunt @macronencer @elizayer Same! I’ve half jokingly said my bathroom is the most productive room in my home office setup. Sitting on the toilet and lots of a-ha moments
@mroach @robtherunt @macronencer Heck yeah. So let's not even get started on the ways RTO undermines effectiveness....
-
The problem AI is meant to solve is wages.
They don't care if quality sucks, if they can avoid paying wages.
Yup if they could produce code that was equal to humans but saved 50 cents they would destroy a million folks lively hood.
-
@mroach @robtherunt @macronencer Heck yeah. So let's not even get started on the ways RTO undermines effectiveness....
@elizayer @robtherunt @macronencer Oh let me count the ways…
When I do make an appearance at the office my parting words are usually: I’m headed home so I can get some work done.
Return to office != Return to work -
@diekehrseite Well, @ulveon doesn't say it explicitly, but this case *was* an interesting example of where we could no longer say the LLM "just generating code."
The fact that it can succeed at that level of sophisticated analysis suggests that when we have clear success criteria (e.g. "vuln found"), the LLM can do very hard things indeed.
Agree this will be really interesting to watch!
-
@elizayer workaday devs are serfs. Software architects are more crucial than ever. Architects emerge from jr devs through apprenticeship. Go.
@cigitalgem Yeah, I also want to be honest with ourselves.
At least in the US, people change jobs so often -- and promotion practices are so shonky -- that the jr dev-architect flow was already under threat at scale
-
@elizayer
WAS not the problem. 🫠@goleztrol hahaha fair!
-
Somebody said the the billionaires want to own what you need to survive.
-
Somebody said the the billionaires want to own what you need to survive.
-
system design.
It took us 2 months and change to code 90% of the requirements. Rolled it out and completely reorganized their workflow without a serious issue.
They ran on that Paradox for DOS system for many years and grew their business throughout without the need to expand their core staff while supplying greatly enhanced service to their customers.They're still out there - https://www.cgfns.org/
@joeinwynnewood @Aedius Amazing! I love a success story like that.
Of course... not all engineering teams are successful at the up-front work. Often out of a combination of weak engineering skills and the wrong environment...
I've come across very few senior managers who have the skill to create an environment where this is possible! Would love to see a recognition of this in leadership circles :sigh:
-
@diekehrseite Well, @ulveon doesn't say it explicitly, but this case *was* an interesting example of where we could no longer say the LLM "just generating code."
The fact that it can succeed at that level of sophisticated analysis suggests that when we have clear success criteria (e.g. "vuln found"), the LLM can do very hard things indeed.
Agree this will be really interesting to watch!
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.It started with visual entertainment, say movies - basically no-one makes new films any more, because the VC suits won't fund it. So everyone does remakes of "shit that worked last time". Now, the same thing is happening to software.
Counter-examples of course exist in the FOSS world.
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer I think of LLM’s as pattern re-use; applying learned patterns from old data to new situations. Good for menial tasks that are too boring for humans, but not for coming up with radical new things.
-
The fact that we are *not* seeing wildly improving software all around us tells us everything we need to know.
There is no flourishing of value delivery, new product categories, more needs being satisfied better. It’s the opposite.
All we are seeing is decreases in quality, because
code creation is not the problem.@elizayer @hbons give me some time. I’ve only been using LLMs to code for a few months… so far I’ve only managed to write an operating system https://codeberg.org/dpp/meows
A new scripting language https://codeberg.org/dpp/meowscript
An eBPF to FPGA converter https://codeberg.org/dpp/lycaon
And some misc utils
But this is weekend work
