I appreciate this comment immensely - too many people seem to mindlessly assume that every other person shares their own situations, and it could not be less true.
So what you're saying is this hypothetically disabled person who is physically incapable of driving chose NOT to mention that, but instead chose to provide "I never got my drivers license" as their reason?
And you're asking someone to consider this because I presume you think this is a likely enough scenario to consider?
I currently am mid 30s and 10 years into my career. I have no interest in joining a union right now, simply because I am confident in my skill and my ability to increase my earnings and career progression without being a member of a union.
Maybe when I hit peak earnings and no longer get a sizeable raise when hopping jobs every 3-4 years and the personal progression is no longer satisfying, I'd be interested in a union.
Notably, I have never been laid off and I have enough savings/investments to keep my family fed and housed for years if I am without work.
When I stop caring about career progression, about learning and growing, and just want to receive a paycheck for minimal effort until I can't be bothered showing up at work anymore, I'd be more than happy to join a union to ride it out. Until then, for purely selfish and individualistic reasons, I'd rather be solo.
Likely what would happen is by the time I want to join a union, it's no longer feasible for one reason or another, but I'll have enough savings by then (or we're all screwed anyway) to be fine.
I think this is company culture. You're asking how to make your engineers give enough of a damn about their output to spend the extra time understanding it.
Did they do this before AI? Does the company really, truly care about software quality or are they just trying to ship features?
Things like
- in depth code reviews
- encouraging sharing knowledge and helping others
- dedicating time to address technical debt
- giving engineers freedom to explore technologies and solutions
- following best practices for software dev
- hiring the right people
This is one of those things you can't enforce, but your leadership can encourage it by setting examples. If your company does not care about understanding the software by carving out time and explicitly encouraging it, then employees won't either.
Im the pre-AI era you could ask engineers to write a document and that proves they've thought/ not thought a problem space out. having docs be an important part of your company culture was essentially the forcing function for everything else.
With AI, docs are now very cheap to produce and not immediately proof of thought.
e.g. if you see something that doesn't make sense you can't just ask the author to write a doc for it anymore, because they'll just feed that to an LLM.
I've found two jobs from that thread, and have been offered a third I turned down. I usually just ctrl-f for the tech I use and apply if I see something interesting that matches my skillset. It's quite targeted. I think I have like a 50% success rate with applying via HN.
Why not a childfree tax instead? It's not going to be popular, but for societies with low birth rates - contribute to the next generation either via human bodies or via cash. But I doubt society's ability to put this tax towards the next generation.
I believe childfree tax is an really bad idea as there are so many examples shows how cruel parents can become when they have no intention of taking responsibility for their children.
Enacting strict laws against abuse can prevent some extreme cases, but do we really want child to grow up in an hostile family?
Sure, that works, but I think the incentives work out better for the children with a child tax than a childfree tax. With a child tax, there is an additional economic incentive to invest in the child (food, education, wellbeing, housing when they're starting their career), while the incentive ends at birth for a childfree tax.
By then, the fix will be easy. Fire up the latest LLM, point it at your codebase and tell it "rewrite this from scratch. do it well. fix the architecture mistakes"
There is definitely going to be some Wirth's law-like [0] effect about the asymmetry of software complexity outpacing LLMs' abilities to untangle said software. Claude 9.2 Optimus Prime might be able to wrangle 1M LoC, but somehow YC 2035 will have some Series A startup with 1B+ LoC in prod — we'll always have software companies teetering on the very edge of unmaintainability.
It's the Peter principle for computers. Codebases expand to the limits of the organization's ability to manage them. If you make one person use ed to write code for a bare metal environment, you'll get a comparatively small, laser-focused codebase. If you task a hundred modern developers to solve the same problem, you'll get a Linux box device running a million lines of JavaScript.
Same thing happens in other fields. A rich country and a poor country might build equivalent roads, but they won't pay the same price for them.
It won't be an LLM that does it, the entire feature of an LLM is it produces generalizable reasonably "correct" text in response to a context.
The system that makes it have an opinion about good vs bad architecture or engineering sensibilities will be something on top of the transformer and probably something more deterministic than a prompt.
We can do this today too (but definitely hopefully future LLMs make better architectural decisions). With Claude, I've been working on an application for the last 2 months. I didn't have a great vision of what I wanted when I started but I didn't want that to slow me down. The architecture is terrible - Claude separated some functionality into different classes but did a bad job at it and created a big ball of mud. Now that I finally have my vision locked down and implemented (albeit poorly), it'd be a great time to throw it away and start over. It'd be interesting to see the result and see how long it takes.
Just have claude (or gpt maybe) do an architecture review and request a multi-phase refactoring plan. This is probably better to do incrementally as you notice the balls of mud forming but it might not be too late. Either way, if it does something you don't like, `git checkout` and start over
Exactly. Sorry for not being explicit about it. I thought it was clear enough, because 'this code is crap, let's just rewrite the whole thing, doesn't look to hard' is kind of famous for being a bad idea most of the time since forever.
Yes. The models may have started from indiscriminate scraping, but people are undoubtedly working on refining the training data. Combined with the overall model capabilities, I suspect code quality will continue to go up.
What you're suggesting is a negative flywheel where quality spirals down, but I'm hoping it becomes a positive loop and the quality floor goes up. We had plenty of slop before LLMs, and not all LLM output is slop. Time will tell, but I think LLMs will continue to improve their coding abilities and push overall quality higher.
What I see is that while LLMs can do real tasks, they often produce overengineered unmaintainable slop (plenty of examples where code can be reduced 10x to do the same). I hope this is not a base to continue training LLMs on.
I don't disagree that there's a lot of slop getting churned out, you're not wrong there. I just have hopes that we'll course-correct after some initial adjustment period, but I have no idea how long that might be (guessing several years).
I don't know how long LLMs will hold their position, but in my mind, it makes sense that computers will eventually be the best programmers. Humans will still guide, but rarely write or even read code. I might be dead by then, but that's my prediction for the future.
I can argue that disaster started mid-4.6, when they started juggling with rate limits while hitting uptime problems. Great we have some healthy competition and waiting for the next move from Deepmind.
Non designers will vibe-design a prototype with claude, export it to canva and let the designers finish it up
If code doesn't go this direction soon, I'd be surprised. PM builds a prototype with claude, or designer designs something in figma/canva - claude vibe codes 70% of the solution using your company's frameworks and design system, then hands it off to the developer who finishes it and productionizes it
Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
But we still restrict sale of alcohol to minors, suggesting that it, like driving, is a privilege granted only to those we trust to control it, rather than a natural right deserved by everyone.
reply