The AI doesn't judge, it doesn't have ego, and generally, if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context).
So in a sense, we are more forgiving of ourselves more than anything.
Eh, sometimes the instructions you need to give are almost the code you need itself, at which point its better to just write the code rather than have it fuck your logic for you.
in fact, in my domain, that's almost always the case. LLM's rarely get it right. Getting something done that would take me a day, takes a day with an LLM, only now I don't fully understand what was written, so no real value add, just loss.
It sure can be nice for solved problems and boilerplate tho.
Speaking only of written communication here: I've noticed a distinct trend of people stopping documentation, comments, release notes, etc. intended for human consumption and devoting their writing efforts to building skills, prompts, CLAUDE.md intended for machines.
While my initial reaction was dystopian horror that we're losing our humanity, I feel slightly different after sitting with it for a while.
Ask yourself, how effective was all that effort really? Did any humans actually read and internalize what was written? Or did it just rot in the company wiki? Were we actually communicating effectively with our peers, or just spending lots of time on trying to? Let's not retcon our way to believing the pre-AI days were golden. So much tribal knowledge has been lost, NOT because no one documented it but because no one bothered to read it. Now at least the AI reads it.
I don't find the conclusions plausible. It's completely ignoring that AI is a machine and not in our social hierarchy, while humans are, and we have a large section of wetware devoted to constantly judging the social hierarchy and rules.
At least personally this was obvious to me years before AI was around. Whenever we had clear data that came to an obvious conclusion, I found that it didn't matter if _I_ said the conclusion, regardless of if the data was included. I got a lot more leeway by simply presenting the data to represent my conclusion and let my boss come to it.
In the first situation the conclusion was now _my_ opinion and everyone's feelings got involved. In the second the magic conch(usually a spreadsheet) said the opinion so no feelings were triggered.
It is funny how we are so willing to iterate on a prompt for ten minutes but we get annoyed when we have to repeat ourselves to a person. I think we could all benefit from not taking things so personally at work.
While I whole heartedly agree with your conclusion..
It's worth noting that much of the frustration stems from expectations.
I don't expect an AI to learn and "update their weights"..
I do however expect colleagues to learn at a specific rate. A rate that I a believe should meet or exceed my company's standards for, uh, human intelligence.
Well also get to the point eventually where people are writing like AI because they’re exposed to it so much. I’ve caught myself rephrasing certain posts after I realized it sounded like AI
I am more patient with kids, dogs, etc.
The AI doesn't judge, it doesn't have ego, and generally, if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context).
So in a sense, we are more forgiving of ourselves more than anything.
> if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context).
Sounds a lot like the understanding we should have with each other.
Eh, sometimes the instructions you need to give are almost the code you need itself, at which point its better to just write the code rather than have it fuck your logic for you.
in fact, in my domain, that's almost always the case. LLM's rarely get it right. Getting something done that would take me a day, takes a day with an LLM, only now I don't fully understand what was written, so no real value add, just loss.
It sure can be nice for solved problems and boilerplate tho.
Speaking only of written communication here: I've noticed a distinct trend of people stopping documentation, comments, release notes, etc. intended for human consumption and devoting their writing efforts to building skills, prompts, CLAUDE.md intended for machines.
While my initial reaction was dystopian horror that we're losing our humanity, I feel slightly different after sitting with it for a while.
Ask yourself, how effective was all that effort really? Did any humans actually read and internalize what was written? Or did it just rot in the company wiki? Were we actually communicating effectively with our peers, or just spending lots of time on trying to? Let's not retcon our way to believing the pre-AI days were golden. So much tribal knowledge has been lost, NOT because no one documented it but because no one bothered to read it. Now at least the AI reads it.
With a program or machine, I can cut the interaction at any time, walk away and not feel rude.
I don't find the conclusions plausible. It's completely ignoring that AI is a machine and not in our social hierarchy, while humans are, and we have a large section of wetware devoted to constantly judging the social hierarchy and rules.
At least personally this was obvious to me years before AI was around. Whenever we had clear data that came to an obvious conclusion, I found that it didn't matter if _I_ said the conclusion, regardless of if the data was included. I got a lot more leeway by simply presenting the data to represent my conclusion and let my boss come to it.
In the first situation the conclusion was now _my_ opinion and everyone's feelings got involved. In the second the magic conch(usually a spreadsheet) said the opinion so no feelings were triggered.
It is funny how we are so willing to iterate on a prompt for ten minutes but we get annoyed when we have to repeat ourselves to a person. I think we could all benefit from not taking things so personally at work.
While I whole heartedly agree with your conclusion..
It's worth noting that much of the frustration stems from expectations.
I don't expect an AI to learn and "update their weights"..
I do however expect colleagues to learn at a specific rate. A rate that I a believe should meet or exceed my company's standards for, uh, human intelligence.
> No frustration. No judgment. Just iteration.
[citation needed]
This entire article is just meaningless vibes of one guy who sells AI stuff.
Also, what are the "rule of three" and constructions of the form "no X, no Y, just Z" indicative of?
Bruh either had help, or he's the most trite writer ever.
Well also get to the point eventually where people are writing like AI because they’re exposed to it so much. I’ve caught myself rephrasing certain posts after I realized it sounded like AI