duncanfwalker

It might not be the perfect analogy, but it does show some important parallels and differences. Compilers reason to some extent - for example type inference is definitely some deductive reasoning that I would have to do if the compiler didn't do it for me.

The hallucinations point is a difference and one that we haven't quite learnt to handle yet. Generally, compilers are deterministic (even it it might not feel like it sometimes) and there's a lot of useful properties that come from that.

I have recently put Claude into a CI/CD pipeline and it's made me realise how much I rely on pipelines being deterministic.

I have been feeling that something - a few things - has to change about Agile rituals given a team is using Claude extensively. I haven't yet found any thoughtful writing on the topic.

The most obvious impacts have been shorter synchronous conversations for planning and refinement because so much more specification is written. I've also found myself doing more spiking.

The thing is, all the changes I see to Agile are matters of degree, not fundamental breaks with the Agile manifesto or tradition. I'm not sure whether that's because a) all that's needed is tweaks or b) because the existing way of doing Agile is so in-grained that it's hard to see that it doesn't fit today's reality.

I would assess the directionality and rate of the trend. If it's getting better fast and we don't see a limit to that trend then it will eventually pass whatever threshold we set for adoption.

It's not so valuable to assess the current state - what the impact of using AI is today. From personal experience it feels like overall impact on productivity was not positive a couple of years ago, might be positive now and will be positive in a couple of years. That means by assessing the current state of impact on product where just finding where we are on that change curve. If we accept that trend is happening then we know at some point it will (or has) pass the threshold where our companies will fall behind if they're not using it. We also know it takes a while to get up to speed and make sure we're making the most of it so the earlier we start the better. That's the counter arguement that we could wait for a later wave to jump on but that's risky and the only potential reward is a small percentage short-term productivity gain.

Spending is paid for out of tax and all those people will have paid tax. Paying less tax than someone else doesn't make a free rider. Deliberately opting out of an obligation while taking from the group makes a free rider.

I guess it's more clear that it should be a to statically readable value? eg you shouldn't do things like use arguments to build the str

This is spot on. I'd love it if it was possible to get the integration with the QGIS ecosystem. It could open source integrations or even a commercial offering that just joins things up in a cohesive way just something that enables a more smooth collaboration model.

Any tips on smoothing the transition between the two that mean work isn't duplicated?

That's an insightful nuance. I've seen you just create divisions in organisations because while it is a really fully featured desktop application, it implies a way of working that doesn't play well with the cloud, which creates barriers between experimenting and production.

As other comments have said, I'd prefer other solutions to get by all the tests to run faster. It would be interesting to see if it could be used to prioritise tests - get the tests more likely to fail to run sooner.

Oh god, this has just made me reflect that we're in the golden age of generative AI - not in technology terms, in user experience terms. We're in the period where the major products are competing against each other before they switch into enshitfication mode. You're certainly right, there's going to be ads in the answers and probably worse. I'm imagining companies paying to introduce ideas as subtle subtexts to millions of unrelated answers or platforms deliberately engineering the ux to maximise understanding of our drives and preferences purely so it can be sold.

I wonder whether we'll be able to look back on this period in 10 years time and save definitively whether the wide spectrum of responses to LLMs was perception or real feature of our differing jobs.

+1 you're paying for the governance as much as you're paying for the code.