ajshahH

6 ms·

1.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
They have to convince CTOs etc they’ll be left behind. The products they’re selling won’t sell fast enough on merit.
2.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
The only sources of these “it works flawlessly” I know of are: - literal Claude ads I see online - my underperforming coworkers whose code I’ve had to cleanup and know first hand that no, it wasn’t flawless This kind of sentiment is gasligh
3.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
> In oligarchy, connections and donations decide. It sure look like the US is transitioning from the former to the latter Transitioning? That happened post WW2. How many more wars in the Middle East do we need to convince people? Though,
4.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
> There is no good justification I can give the rest of the company for why we would not incorporate AI tools Is there definitive proof of long term productivity gains with no detriment to defects, future velocity, etc? If so I’d say you
5.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
> And it can fill in the missing details and disambiguate the others. Are you suggesting “And Claude, make no mistakes” works? Because otherwise you need an expert operating the thing. Yes, it can answer questions, but you need to know w
6.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
This implies programming is done and there will be no other advancements. And flattening is being seen, no? Recent advancements are mostly from RL’ing, which has limitations (and tradeoffs) too. Are there more tricks after that?
7.
by ajshahH 7mo ago
Yes, but knowing how to scope your changes requires a lot of expertise.