bigstrat2003

The vast majority of kids will be just fine if you take them grocery shopping. Yes, exceptions exist. But "just take the kids shopping" is good advice for almost everyone.

That is not true of Terraform, nor any other language. If you aren't at minimum reading and understanding the code, you are bad at your job, full stop. More realistically, you should still be writing a lot of code, because most of the time you will waste more time trying to work with LLMs than doing it yourself.

> Let’s say you have an incident, and you need a resolution. Do you send out the AI for the hunt and fix it within 5 minutes, or spend 30 minutes going around, figuring out the problem yourself?

It is far more often the case that you will spend more time getting the answer out of the LLM than you would've gotten yourself. They suck ass at troubleshooting systems, very frequently jumping to completely implausible scenarios that no human would think of as the first thing to try, and almost never asking questions to clarify the situation the way a human does.

> I feel it falls well short of what a proper, forward-thinking "AI-native" engineering org would actually look like. That is, the author is presenting this as kind of a radical departure from normal engineering, but I just see it as normal engineering with more AI. I don't see that as AI-native.

A company which proclaims they are "AI-native" isn't actually interested in engineering, they are trying to ride the hype wave. Companies who care about engineering just... do engineering, and don't make a big deal out of whether they are chasing trends.

Using AI for support is such a dick move to your customers. I can't understand how companies don't see how disrespectful it is. I ran into that at work with Sonicwall recently, and had to contact our account rep to get my case to a human, not a clanker. It really made me feel like they don't care about solving my issues, and as a result I doubt very much if I would ever choose the company if I were given the power over that decision.

If you haven't already, it's a good time to pay for a domain. That way, no matter what host you may choose to use in the future, people will still be able to email you with the address they already know. It does add some additional cost, but imo it's well worth it.

My wife and I met through OKCupid, and one of the things that most caught my eye on her profile was that she had a crush on Picard as a teenager. I knew then that she was a woman of impeccable taste.

There's a very important difference between the author's worldview shaping the fictional world, and preaching. For example, nobody who reads Tolkien can doubt that his devout Catholic faith shaped his storytelling. It is everywhere you look. But not once does Tolkien have one of his characters give a speech about the necessity of Jesus for a happy life, or introduce a character who had a child out of wedlock just so Aragorn could chastise her about the immorality of extramarital sex, or anything like that. Modern writers, by contrast, do that kind of thing on a depressingly regular basis. I have read so many books, seen so many TV shows, where the author thought it was appropriate to use the work to lecture me about their political views, and it ruins the work every time.

I don't expect, and don't think most people expect, for authors to not have their storytelling shaped by their views. That would be impossible. But it's not impossible for them to refrain from derailing the story just to lecture the audience on morality.

> Do we really need humans writing code anymore though?

Yes, we do.

> Another year of development and AI is just going to be superior to a human writing code.

I've been hearing that for multiple years now. Why is it true this time when it wasn't in the past?

Also, they don't need shaking out of their ways. Aren't the AI bros always trying to tell us to evaluate the results, not the tool used to produce them? That argument cuts both ways. The Proton engineers are demonstrably doing a good job at building the software, so they shouldn't be punished if they believe LLMs aren't the right tool for the job.

> I think we all know the game has changed.

We do not all know anything of the sort. From my perspective, the game hasn't changed at all, and it's just a bunch of people hyping up a bubble who think it has.

That is an evil way to think, my friend. It is not okay to write someone off because they don't view a transaction with the same moral gravity you do. I encourage you to reconsider your perspective, because this kind of thinking is unfortunately commonplace and it is corrosive to our society.

> Writing code by hand is dead. It just is. In a couple years this won’t be controversial, just accepted fact.

Bull. Models still can't be trusted to write decent code, even with all the supposed "improvement". The time it takes you to review the slop they put out and fix it wipes out any potential productivity gains. Unless the tech improves, it is perfectly reasonable (and even superior) to write your code instead of handing it off to a model.

I certainly agree that the obligations of family can bring serious hardship as well as happiness. But I think that, on balance, most people believe it to be a net positive.

> No AI guarantees nothing

No, but it does significantly increase the likelihood that the software will be good. Stuff people wrote with LLMs is on average much worse than stuff people wrote themselves.