> My own parents are still relatively young and my in-laws are sceptical enough of other people that it’s currently safe but it won’t be so forever.
It is always interesting to me how people equate getting old with becoming dumb. I know there is definitely some age related decline that's inevitable, but if a person has grown up with computers, and maybe more importantly, has had a hacker and curious mindset while younger, it is not likely that they will suddenly become so naive and vulnerable, even when like 80.
What usually happens is that people lose interest in learning new things and keeping up. My own mom (who passed at 73) could never be convinced to use Whatsapp messaging, thinking it is something complicated for the young ones, and yet I currently know people in their mid 70s and even much older who are still as sharp as anything and use all the cool apps.
If you are checking every line written by an LLM , what would you estimate is the probability it would ever do this?? I look at most code still and I have a high level of trust that it would never do anything remotely similar to this.
"trust" and "responsibility" mean nothing for a fully digital entity who isn't required to feed its family, looking for an eventual new job, and being under pressure for not being fired
Code review, style guides, and a large set of tools like fuzzers that try to check for bad behavior before the code makes it into production. At least that's how it is done where I work and the use of agents to write code has not obviated the need for such a process (in fact we have added agents to that large set of tools and seen improvements in code quality as a result).
> A few days ago I was looking at a file with a list of expenses and I thought: “It’d be cool if I could automatically sum all of them… wait a minute, let me throw some code at it!” Half a soda later, I had the first version of calc blocks (a block that evaluates simple operations and shows the result in its margin) working in the app and already useful.
A few more of these, and you have a blob of software that has no recognizable shape, and does "everything", with no guardrails and gates on anything, whereas meaning arises from these.
The problem is not knowing when to stop, when to avoid implementing something. The AI will not stop you.
The skill and knowledge and intuition for what make good software cannot be offloaded, no matter how many times people write articles asserting that the machines have got it all figured out.
If anything, I enjoy programming more now with AI assistance, not vibe-coding. The depth and breadth of my work has increased greatly (yes, I still read and write a lot of code and documents, that the agents build on); I'm like a kid in a candy store.
Projects that would have seemed too daunting now seem feasible to tackle. I could even get started on implementing my dream language, or a knowledge management system for agents, or ... the possibilities are endless.
Now, my software engineering is for my own company, maybe that makes a difference. There is no one breathing down my neck to use more AI where it does not make sense, or to use AI this way or that. I am in the driver's seat, and I only delegate to AI what I need it for, and what it is good at. There is still much that is required of me that the AI cannot do, not anytime soon.
> Now, my software engineering is for my own company, maybe that makes a difference.
That is 100% the difference. Most people working as employees aren't passionate about the company as an entity. They won't love your baby like you do. What they did love was taking your baby for walks; now they're left with just changing dirty diapers.
How is AI anywhere close to making better architecture decisions? And how it is close to even writing better code?
People keep saying this, and again and again I find it be false; a single session with Claude Opus is all it takes to debunk this, and yet people take it as given.
I have to wonder, have people drunk the vibe-coding cool-aid so much so that they are asserting the superiority of code they have never reviewed?
Are you asking me for session logs or what? Here are two examples from just this week:
1. I created an authz lib for the app that enforces both at runtime and with types. I wanted to extend it to check not only the base DTO type shapes, but also DTOs with related record DTO properties. The context that is checked a triple of Role (e.g, admin, etc), Action (e.g., read, modify, insert, delete), and Entity.
Claude Opus initially tried to implement this enhancement by adding a role generic parameter to the DTOs (which kind of duplicates my utility type that accepts a DTO type and authz context and returns the narrowed type) and also, weirdly, wanted the role narrowing to apply only to nested DTOs. I had to throw out all that work, and ask it to enhance the existing utility auth types, and make that the authz narrowing applies to both the main DTOs and their related sub-DTOs always, at the same time.
2. I wanted to create a messaging system for the web app I'm developing. For example, where certain users with specific roles create specific entity records, admins are supposed to an email or SMS (depending in factor they registered with) plus an in-app message. These messages, especially the emails, are not just text, but formatted. Claude Opus wanted to embed formatting in the code that creates and send the messages. But this code works better when split up into various responsibilities: the message factory, the messages template, an the actual sender.
So I had it separate out the templates, implemented as JSX. Now if I want to change the templates, it is simple for me change just that, rather than hunting in some monolithic code to do that.
Aren't they supposed to be full of sugar? Each time I've been tempted to pick them up when shopping, one look at the ingredients and nutritional profile is enough to dissuade me. I guess trying them once in a while won't kill me, though.
Apparently, they are a brand of speculoos cookies, and this Wikipedia synopsis is eye opening:
> speculaas [speːkyˈlaːs] ⓘ refers to the more traditional variant, made with a mix of various spices, which is nowadays most popular in the Netherlands; speculoos [speːkyˈloːs] ⓘ refers to a Belgian variant that omits the traditional spices in favour of caramelized sugar for flavour, and which is nowadays the most common variant in Belgium and worldwide
So the Belgians enshittified speculaas to create speculoos, pumping it full of sugar, and presented it to the world as something special.
Yes, cookies are not the most healthy thing, but there are better and worse ones. It is not just even about it containing some sugar. Why replace the spices that made a traditional cookie special, with more sugar? What is distinctive about sugar?
There is a good reason for that. Even traditional speculaas (not Lotus or other mass produced speculoos/biscoff) contains less and less speculaas spices the further you move away from Amsterdam. Because the spices arrived there, they were cheapest there. The further away (in this case south) you moved, the more expensive they were. This leads to bakers, especially commercial ones, to use less in their recipes.
> So the Belgians enshittified speculaas to create speculoos
Yes and no. This "Speculoos is actually cheap Speculaas" isn't completely true. That's what people like to say today, but the "Speculoos" name has been around much longer than Lotus bakeries. It's just a dialect thing and there is no reason.
Some people called it "Speculaas", some people called it "Speculoos", and _then_ a cheaper variant got made and they choose the "Speculoos" term for it.
It all just sounds really fitting because the "-loos" suffix in Dutch means "without".
Modern design is not synonymous to dis-empowering design.
FWIW I love modern design, and I hate all these too clever skeuomorphs. Modern design is honest to the digital medium. I find its beauty lies, not in the quirky ways it tries to mimic real textures and objects, but by how it provides usable controls and information by applying basic design elements like spacing, alignment, color, typography, discovery, layered info density, etc. well.
None of these requires skeuomorphs. It is like the difference between thinking a website is visually impressive and stunning because it uses a nice background image. That would not impress me. What would impress me are stuff like: does it have an effective information architecture, as reflected in it main menu and general link structure? Does it use a tasteful and usable color scheme? Does it have an interesting and still usable visual grouping? Etc.
I fully agree with this take. I don't think of a monitor / desktop as a tool that I interact with like I would a hammer; there is nothing intuitive about "open this high-definition representation of a day planner by clicking a button with your thumb on this little round plastic box somewhere else." I simply do not understand the appeal of skeumorphism, frankly I think these things look tacky but that is just my preference.
My interactions are with content, generally as strings of text but often as picture/video/audio. I prefer that my 'desktop' apply the principles you've mentioned, to the problem of tastefully and comfortably arranging, displaying, and manipulating that content, and little else. Some types of controls that lean skeuomorphic, like sliders or switches, may be useful and even intuitive in that endeavor; others, like an analog knob or dial, aren't. If I want to watch a video, display it in a minimal, tasteful frame; I do not need a representation of an old 1970s wooden TV or something.
I always find it kind of odd that whenever any thing about reducing mosquitoes come out, you have a ton of people all echoing some variation of: "but what about all the possible effects"?
I don't know, what are the possible effects of antibiotics? What are the possible effects of uprooting weeds, which some organisms may depend on? What are the possible harmful effects of putting out wildfires?
For every action that someone might think of as beneficial, there are all sorts of "harmful" effects that can be posited. In the examples above, these harms are not even just theoretical, and yet people do not constantly wring their hands worrying about wildfire fighting, weed control, or the proper use of antibiotics.
That this seems to happen only with mosquitoes seems quite weird to me, especially when it occurs even with efforts to reduce mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases. People are oddly very worried about some nebulous harm caused by reducing real and serious harm now.
Hmm, actually specifically for the things you mentioned people did wring their hands and made changes to the procedure.
Wildfire - controlled wildfires are actually beneficial to prevent the real bad ones and help refertilize. So they now let them burn down if possible and just control the edges where necessary.
Weed control - poisoned groundwater from herbicides/pesticides is a huge headache, so these are tightly regulated on substances and amounts.
Antibiotics - multiresistant bacteria have taken over since years. In turn, antibiotics are now prescribed more rarely and for longer periods (to make it resistant survivors less likely) and new antibiotics had to be developed.
But that is my point: I specifically chose examples where people have an actual point to be concerned, and yet the amount of hand wringing over these issues pale in comparison to the concerns about mosquitoes.
But how do you know the hand wringing is less justified in this case? I imagine quite some time went by until the wringing was considered justified on all three accounts we previously talked about.
> My own parents are still relatively young and my in-laws are sceptical enough of other people that it’s currently safe but it won’t be so forever.
It is always interesting to me how people equate getting old with becoming dumb. I know there is definitely some age related decline that's inevitable, but if a person has grown up with computers, and maybe more importantly, has had a hacker and curious mindset while younger, it is not likely that they will suddenly become so naive and vulnerable, even when like 80.
What usually happens is that people lose interest in learning new things and keeping up. My own mom (who passed at 73) could never be convinced to use Whatsapp messaging, thinking it is something complicated for the young ones, and yet I currently know people in their mid 70s and even much older who are still as sharp as anything and use all the cool apps.
reply