AI agents are becoming your biggest API consumers, and they can’t always DM other teams. If you want to be productive with AI, if you want your codebase to be a place where agents can actually work, you need to think of your codebase as an application that the agent is interacting with.
So what you’re saying is: mis-type everything! 👉😉👉
What an exciting time to be building software! With AI, we’re able to achieve production outages with unprecedented frequency!
I’m not so sure the “open source” part is working either when you think about how AI tools were trained.
It’s really sad, because the accessibility of developing software and collaborative nature of the open source community is a big part of what drew me to software engineering as a career, and it’s always been one of the first things I mention about why I love it. But, of course, these fucking evil companies found a way to take every individual part of something good and twist it into something awful.
The most frustrating is when someone asks me for help because they’re stuck then hits me with a barrage of “chatgpt said xxx” complete nonsense while I’m trying to assess the situation
That is the absolute worst. I’ve even gotten “Because Claude said so” in response to code review comments asking why they made a certain design decision.
they let off the gas
Man, I’m so jealous. My company is too large for me to have any sway, and they just added AI tool adoption as one of the key performance indicators on our performance reviews. 😔
I am staunchly anti-AI, but the company I am working for unfortunately pushes AI tool adoption extremely aggressively. A lot of the things in the post are similar to sentiments I have. Specifically the sections around vibe coding offloading the burden of work to the reviewer and how to mitigate that by pushing back against those sorts of PRs.
I agree with you, though, that the post ignores the simplest solution of just not using AI tools. It may be the case that the author doesn’t have the ability to enforce that, but it should still definitely be listed as the first and most logical solution.
I’m at the point where I’m seriously considering creating a blocklist of certain engineers at work that spam out vibe coded trash PRs and informing my manager that I will not do code reviews for anyone on the list.
While I understand the sentiment, I don’t feel like that’s a particularly fresh revelation… If anything, I was surprised at the handful of dissenting voices on the right. Even before this latest wave of Epstein news, I was willing to bet Trump could just straight up admit to pedophilia and still wouldn’t lose much of his base.
It should have never gotten through code review, but the senior devs were themselves overloaded with work
Ngl, as much as I dislike AI, I think this is really the bigger issue. Hiring a junior and then merging his contributions without code reviewing is a disaster waiting to happen with or without AI.
That’s fair, but my point is that the NYT headline/article seems to be so simplified that it almost becomes contradictory. For example, you quoted this bit
The agency took the unusual step of creating websites debunking the conspiracy theory that chemicals are being sprayed in the sky to control the weather or do other things.
But later in the article it also says
The chief executive of Rainmaker, Augustus Doricko, has said that while the company released silver iodide into a pair of clouds on July 2, the mission led to less than half a centimeter of rain falling on drought-stricken farmland
So there is a company that is effectively “spraying chemicals in the sky” with the express intent of “leading to rain falling”. Again, I realize that is very different from the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory, but that nuance could have been handled so much better.
I much prefer the phrasing of the AP article’s headline that I linked earlier: “No, weather modification did not cause the deadly flash floods in Texas.”
Kind of reductive that the headline is “Chemtrials are not real or causing foods”, but the linked website points out that contrails are real, and
Current models indicate that persistent contrail clouds could have a small net warming effect.
And considering that climate change is considered a contributing factor to floods…
Additionally, one of the leading conspiracy theories related to the floods is about cloud seeding, not chemtrails. And, while cloud seeding is real (and has happened in south-central Texas), it did not cause the Texas floods.
So yes, the headline is technically correct, but there’s a lot of additional context that I feel like they’re skipping over.
I was just complaining about these “science” headlines the other day. This one in particular actually startled me a bit because I thought “The Sun is having a moment” was a euphemism for some potentially catastrophic solar flare or something.
Idk, I’ve played a lot of Eve Online, and I usually try to be kind to players that are new or friendly. Sims on the other hand…
I once wasted an hour trying to figure out why a CLI command straight from a project’s README wouldn’t work, only to figure out that they had em dashes instead of regular dashes in their example. Ended up opening a PR to hopefully save someone the same pain in the future.
Seems like the article accidentally misspelled his name with an extra “z”. What an absolutely shit take. The corruption here is so obvious.