8 ms·

To the author’s point about there not being enough evidence to support pro-AI claims — Additionally, there are studies and articles coming out showing those peo

To the author’s point about there not being enough evidence to support pro-AI claims — Additionally, there are studies and articles coming out showing those people are wrong and AI only makes people barely more efficient. Not the 10x tech CEOs are claiming while slashing thousands of jobs https://getdx.com/blog/ai-productivity-gains-are-10-percent-not-10x/ https://getdx.com/blog/ai-productivity-gains-are-10-percent-...

E-Reverance 1mo ago
(March 2026)
- lproven 1mo ago
  Five months ago does not make this some kind of historical document. Although the botlickers will find this hard to believe, nothing has happened this year to make we skeptics -- like me, and like the author of this piece, who is for clarity not me -- change our minds. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence.
  - E-Reverance 1mo ago
    >botlickers > Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence. You don't seem particularly interested in changing your mind
    - lproven 1mo ago
      I worked out where I stand and why I stand there. I have reasons. I want evidence to consider changing. Why should I? Because someone somewhere found a tool useful? Because they are big names? That's argument from authority. I don't buy it. I need compelling reasons. I have yet to see any. All I see is a lot of people jumping on bandwagons.
      - E-Reverance 1mo ago
        I'm confused, other people finding it useful is evidence of it being useful for them. How is that merely jumping on a bandwagon? As someone who doesn't like coding, all the one off scripts and ideations its permitted are awesome. Recently I got it to help me explore and compare curve smoothing algorithms and it helped me to test my own formulations that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and converged on computing segments of: ||T(s)-T(t)||^2. / |s-t|^3, where s and t are arc length indices, and we sum over multiple scales of offsets and where T is the (unit) tangent of the curve. Just because that doesn't involve you means its not useful? Its ability to give highly bespoke scripts makes it far more useful to me than hiring an opinionated software developer!!!!!
        lproven 1mo ago
        It is all about externalities. Same as fossil fuels, same as slavery. This kind of systems thinking seems to blow the minds of a lot of heads-down software folks. You have to think about the big picture. Otherwise, the picture goes out. 1. LLMs are profoundly, inexcusably unethical. 2. The kind of software and tools one can build with LLMs might be better off not built at all. These sorts of thoughts seem to blow people's minds. Well, tough. Get used to having a bigger mind.
jerf 1mo ago
I'm definitely able to spew out more code than I used to. Good code. Maybe not great code, but good code. But I spent a lot of time in the second half of this week dealing with friction with a team that is very annoyed that I'm moving fast and using an agile methodology so I can't tell them the exact, precise REST calls that I'm going to have for them in six months designed to a tee and signed off in triplicate before they start development against it. Manifesting that increase in code production as real value to the business is going to take more from me than just spewing the code out more quickly. AI isn't creating this problem. I would have had this problem anyhow even if I were writing all the code by hand again. I know, because I've been there before. But the increased velocity is manifesting in increased organizational stress and not just increased velocity. AI is perhaps even helping solve it to some degree, though far from totally. I have written before about how people eventually learned not to play the "oh well we can't do this until we have documentation" card on me [1]. This week they played the "well, I see you have docs but they aren't in our precise format". Guess what AI can do in about 15 minutes really well? You may recall the term "style transfer" getting tossed about a lot 3-4 years ago, and it is still something AI is extremely good at, and "take these docs in this format and convert them to that format" is just a style-transfer problem. AI really does chew at the "oh but we need docs" old-school card... and they can't even complain about the quality of the AI docs because in order to do that, they'd have to actually read them, and that is not the point of the "but we need docs" card, you see.... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48412349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48412349
- AnimalMuppet 1mo ago
  Yeah, as you said, this isn't an AI problem. The interface between an agile team and the non-agile part of the company was a problem over 20 years ago. (At least, that was when it bit me.) You can think of it as an impedance mismatch, or as a translation problem. But no matter how you think about it, it's real, and it's a problem - especially if upper management lives on the non-agile side of the fence.
matteoraso 1mo ago
The problem is that LLMs improve so fast, your article may very well be out of date by now.

E-Reverance 1mo ago

(March 2026)

lproven 1mo ago
Five months ago does not make this some kind of historical document. Although the botlickers will find this hard to believe, nothing has happened this year to make we skeptics -- like me, and like the author of this piece, who is for clarity not me -- change our minds. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence.
- E-Reverance 1mo ago
  >botlickers > Linus and Greg K-H suddenly deciding they like it is not evidence. You don't seem particularly interested in changing your mind
  - lproven 1mo ago
    I worked out where I stand and why I stand there. I have reasons. I want evidence to consider changing. Why should I? Because someone somewhere found a tool useful? Because they are big names? That's argument from authority. I don't buy it. I need compelling reasons. I have yet to see any. All I see is a lot of people jumping on bandwagons.
    - E-Reverance 1mo ago
      I'm confused, other people finding it useful is evidence of it being useful for them. How is that merely jumping on a bandwagon? As someone who doesn't like coding, all the one off scripts and ideations its permitted are awesome. Recently I got it to help me explore and compare curve smoothing algorithms and it helped me to test my own formulations that I hadn't seen elsewhere, and converged on computing segments of: ||T(s)-T(t)||^2. / |s-t|^3, where s and t are arc length indices, and we sum over multiple scales of offsets and where T is the (unit) tangent of the curve. Just because that doesn't involve you means its not useful? Its ability to give highly bespoke scripts makes it far more useful to me than hiring an opinionated software developer!!!!!
      - lproven 1mo ago
        It is all about externalities. Same as fossil fuels, same as slavery. This kind of systems thinking seems to blow the minds of a lot of heads-down software folks. You have to think about the big picture. Otherwise, the picture goes out. 1. LLMs are profoundly, inexcusably unethical. 2. The kind of software and tools one can build with LLMs might be better off not built at all. These sorts of thoughts seem to blow people's minds. Well, tough. Get used to having a bigger mind.

jerf 1mo ago

I'm definitely able to spew out more code than I used to. Good code. Maybe not great code, but good code. But I spent a lot of time in the second half of this week dealing with friction with a team that is very annoyed that I'm moving fast and using an agile methodology so I can't tell them the exact, precise REST calls that I'm going to have for them in six months designed to a tee and signed off in triplicate before they start development against it. Manifesting that increase in code production as real value to the business is going to take more from me than just spewing the code out more quickly. AI isn't creating this problem. I would have had this problem anyhow even if I were writing all the code by hand again. I know, because I've been there before. But the increased velocity is manifesting in increased organizational stress and not just increased velocity. AI is perhaps even helping solve it to some degree, though far from totally. I have written before about how people eventually learned not to play the "oh well we can't do this until we have documentation" card on me [1]. This week they played the "well, I see you have docs but they aren't in our precise format". Guess what AI can do in about 15 minutes really well? You may recall the term "style transfer" getting tossed about a lot 3-4 years ago, and it is still something AI is extremely good at, and "take these docs in this format and convert them to that format" is just a style-transfer problem. AI really does chew at the "oh but we need docs" old-school card... and they can't even complain about the quality of the AI docs because in order to do that, they'd have to actually read them, and that is not the point of the "but we need docs" card, you see.... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48412349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48412349

AnimalMuppet 1mo ago
Yeah, as you said, this isn't an AI problem. The interface between an agile team and the non-agile part of the company was a problem over 20 years ago. (At least, that was when it bit me.) You can think of it as an impedance mismatch, or as a translation problem. But no matter how you think about it, it's real, and it's a problem - especially if upper management lives on the non-agile side of the fence.

matteoraso 1mo ago

The problem is that LLMs improve so fast, your article may very well be out of date by now.