devin

If you have to care about this stuff, then you do. I think it’s that simple.

Forgive me, but what does Jony Ive know about building platforms?

The rentier class needs a very strong correction. A lot of the conversation focused on what AI is and isn't is often just a proxy for frustration at the structural problems in our society which are in large part due to the inability for hard-working people to live good quality lives because of the incredible greed of the few.

How many are chained, and how many patches are defense-in-depth after discovering chained paths to that flaw?

Yeah, I imagine this is a big part of it.

Care to sell me on it? How dose it compare to musescore?

Judging by parent's CV, it kind of looks like they are relatively new to the industry and working in areas where they are heavy on the greenfield side of the equation. I get the sense that they've probably had some good success on smallish projects where they are in charge of keeping it all in their head. That's not to say that isn't earned or otherwise valuable experience, but it surely is not the way a lot of software projects are situated. Parent: I hope you won't take my comment here as a slight. I mean no offense, just pointing out what I think is probably valuable context.

There is a general misunderstanding about "waste" in firms, organizations, and governments. Perfect efficiency DOES NOT EXIST and even if it did, it is NOT EVEN A DESIRABLE STATE for these entities. Sometimes when you see "waste", and you relentlessly try to drive efficiency, you destroy the _system_ that makes the desirable parts possible in the first place.

10k in the S&P is by default a far better investment than some computer components. You could say the same thing like "you buy a car and I'll put my money in the S&P and we'll see who's happier in N months". We were speculating on the cost of components going forward, not on whether the S&P is better place to park 10k.

"coding is largely solved" and "self-driving is largely solved" smell exactly the same to me.

ETA: I bristle deeply at your idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is letting their emotions get the better of them. Perhaps the world is not as black and white as you're painting it?

The people who I see who are "getting along just fine" in this current mess are either True Believer™ types, or are semi or fully retired and don't need to care particularly strongly which way any of this goes from an employment perspective (meaning: I know people in this group who refuse to use LLMs and people who have attitudes like the author of this article, with similar levels of experience).

I think on one level you can look at these folks and say "well, they may be able to see more clearly because they aren't so wrapped up in it all" but I've done a lot of self-reflection and I simply don't think this is true.

Great article! One perspective I'd like to share is that for me, the joy is mostly found in how beautiful the product is. From that standpoint, I don't particularly care how efficient I am at writing cursive. That said, this is a hand I would be interested to learn.

The other side of it may be that the community that has grown around it is now just going to be annoyed by a bunch of people writing gibberish in their chat for the better part of 24 hours. :)

If you think we're "done", you have no imagination.

I don't think it does. (meaningfully change the economics of rewrites)

Burning a sea of tokens to arrive at the equivalent functionality and having a small team of people oversee that process is rarely going to be the fix to the organizational problems that surround typical failed/stagnant software projects.

Rewrites are rarely about the organization of the symbols and are more often about a change in the fundamental understanding of the organization about the problem they've solving. Remember: People change slowly.

People are often too tied to the idea of "rewrite" as a replay of all current capabilities, but should instead be thinking about fundamentally different primitive capabilities of the system. It's not a "redo" if you're changing some of your fundamental assumptions about the problem space.

This isn't about dogma. Sometimes you genuinely need specialized infrastructure. But the bar should be high: only after pushing Postgres to its limits, documenting why it was insufficient, and accepting the operational cost of the alternative.

I've seen a few "Use Postgres for Everything!" posts lately. It seems to be fashionable. It reminds me of the Choose Boring Technology[1] thing from 2018 or so, but more specific to a database.

I think the ideas of "don't add unnecessary dependencies" and "ruthlessly evaluate tradeoffs" and "prefer simplicity" and so on are general and have very little to with postgres, so when I see things like "All you need is X" I roll my eyes a little, because these decisions are highly dependent on your use case, and taken as blanket advice it is generally _bad_ advice even if the underlying rationale is sound.

[1] https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology

ETA: I am going through their list and so much of this means that you are going to manage your own PG cluster and not take advantage of Aurora or RDS, which means you're already committing to a major tradeoff if you want to use a lot of these custom extensions.

Honest question/comment for you and the parent: I find these subjective experience reports pretty empty without an understanding of your level of experience, the problem space you're working in, etc.

50% of folks seems a pretty strong signal, though. No?

While I agree that simply calling something "AI slop" is not constructive, it is not my job to voluntarily review LLM-extruded crap. In the past I would provide constructive criticism because there was an actual conversation taking place. The producer had put at least enough thought into it such that my engagement didn't feel like replying to a chatbot, but that's what it feels like now, so unless I see some considerable effort and original thought on the author's part, I am likely to drop a "slop" comment and move on with my day.

I look forward to re-evaluating this statement in, what do you say, 12 months from now?

Implicit in your answer is the belief that they will come back to earth. I wonder how realistic that belief is.

If I have 10k to spend, what should I buy for the best local model experience?

I'm taking the downvote in stride, but 14.4 and 28.8 RealAudio streaming seems like it lasted all of 3 months and then people had napster and were pulling 96k mp3s.

AOHell didn't take any time to load, and no one was streaming music on 28.8.

Eh, to be fair, this post is about a _bank_, and the one you've linked is about _fintech_. They are not even close to the same space, even though they both deal with money.

But also I suppose you may be saying exactly this?

Isn't it also well-documented that Virgil Abloh stole more in the ~100% range from up-and-coming designers who then saw nothing for their work?

Also, adumbrate.

I'll help if I can.

Big eye roll from me.

"Can't scale due to too many PRs" neglects answering questions like: Are these PRs valuable? Are they just additional PRs to right the wrongs of previous ill-conceived PRs? How much churn is going on here? Is the influx of PRs a permanent state, or something that we'll only live through temporarily because we have a lot of little things we can set our agents upon, but after they're done we'll return to a normal work cadence?

And then the US government will say that these company's futures are in the national interest, and they will be bailed out with taxpayer dollars.

Do you think bad actors can't make something like this? What are you even talking about?