This is interesting because I assume it has suffered the same linguistic degradation as the word "fine" which in some cases means "of the highest quality" but mostly means "meh". I suspect it comes down to the dialect and social rank of the person saying the sentence. Compare how you would perceive:
It's very clearly written by AI, which means that the thoughts expressed are not novel and the story told cannot be trusted. How can you expect people to spend time digesting the content if the author did not spend time writing it? It would be more honest to show the prompt, or the unpolished draft.
If your competitor is cutting jobs because of AI you can either race them to the bottom or you can use the humans you already have to leverage AI to expand your product offering, become more competitive, tackle more work, deliver better quality results etc. I don't see a world where AI does the work and humans sit around poor and idle.
People always say this but it’s misguided imo. Yes LLMs are not deterministic, but that’s totally irrelevant. You aren’t executing the LLMs output directly, you’re using the LLM to produce an artefact once that is then executed deterministically. A spec gets turned into code once. Editing the spec can cause the code to be updated but it’s not recreating the whole program each time, so why does determinism matter?
Because if you were building GitHub from scratch today you wouldn't build it the same way and would benefit from many of the technological advancements of the last 2 decades (nearly).
Last time they tried this they laundered it though an employee's personal github to distance it from google itself, then framed the proposal in the most disingenuous manner possible, as if it was something that users wanted rather than another mechanism for google to exercise control
Last time this happened we got a bunch of Google employees downplaying the impact of WEI and calling it a nothingburger, that people were being hysterical. I just checked, and everyone I saw defending it has since left the company. I'm sure another wave of Google managers, keen to appeal to the higher-ups, will be here to defend this new initiative any minute now.
1. More code faster is not the goal. More features / value faster is the goal. Obviously to get there you need to write more code, but it's not writing code for code's sake.
2. Yes, true, but the point is to move up the abstraction hierarchy, so instead of asking the LLM to rename a variable you describe the concrete business goal you're trying to achieve.
It is true that coding agents cannot build fully complete stable systems completely unguided yet. That's why we still have jobs. But it's wrong to suggest that they don't deliver value or that they're destined to produce trash every time. It is a matter of oversight and guidance and setting your codebase up for success. That does require work, but it is not impossible, just a different skillset from the ones we've been used to.
Email: [email protected]