gridspy

Sounds like you won the passport lottery.

Some citizens are not as fortunate to live in a country which issues passports accepted in so many places.

I also won the passport lottery.

Bear in mind it takes very few individuals to create a LOT of this sort of low-quality AI content. That makes it hard to judge how many are using Agentic methods vs "only Advice" vs "no AI."

Bear in mind that like many toxic blooms, once the investment hysteria feeding them dies out they will die also.

- Companies using investment funds to play the Ai Agent lottery will run out of funds

- Less tokens will be demanded, causing AI companies to raise prices to pay for overheads

- Bubble pops.

The models might benefit you, but they do not benefit the Host websites that were scraped to feed you a result.

If I wanted a pyramid, I'd want to build it out of stone blocks and be sure that each block is actually stone. I wouldn't want to get halfway and find out that they were actually fragile.

Trusted engineers (of open source projects) can deliver me stone, both the authors and the community (often >100,000 devs) have checked that a specific block is stone and can bear the load.

AI is proven to output all sorts of random stuff. Sometimes a pebble, sometimes foam. It almost always looks like stone to most analysis. However as soon as it's load bearing it's likely to crumble.

Agentic agents have a habit of rebuilding the pyramid and randomly replacing stone blocks with "something else" but we don't know what just yet.

I believe both you and the grandparent will experience diminishing returns in AI performance as the projects get closer and closer to completion.

But due to the sunk cost fallacy and the belief that others have made this work you'll keep plowing money into the AI Slot machine.

The actual problem is that no-one had considered that this (desync between front and backend) COULD happen. Once it was realized that it was possible (and worth testing) the bug was practically solved already.

Such is true for many bugs. Even if you have unit tests, they only test on things you've thought of. It's usually the stuff you haven't thought of that gets you.

No reason not to unit test of course, but don't get a false sense of complacency or assume testing is easy either. That's why it's great to do things very carefully (and probably not with AI Agents).

That's my experience too. Its unfair to expect current AI to do this - since good abstractions are extremely task specific. Hard to train on that.

What's also annoying is that AI's approach is not consistent within a project, a different sort of complexity.

Impressive, also horrifying. I love what I do and if AI can do it better than that sucks.

Anyway the use case for me is to realize a new visual style through graphics programming. It's a lot less measurable for an interative AI agent than "Meet this hardware specification from a device with a discoverable API"

I have no doubt AI could create a LOT of variations on "a new visual style" but it's less controllable than just doing it yourself.

Btw, did you "understand" the sound driver after the AI coded it? Could you modify it without further help?

The word "understand" seems to mean something different to you.

If I understand something, I could write it in assembly if I wanted to. It might take a long time, but I know every level of the stack under my code down to bare metal.

Maybe an AI level of "understand" i.e the same understanding a Senior has of a Junior's code based on daily check-ins is enough for 95% of "boring" programming. But for some tasks you need to either fully understand the code or just tolerate bugs.

At the level of complexity I work at, it's (often) faster to just code it myself than to expect AI to converge on a result I like and then hand check it.

While that may be true, you can be confident that it works in a way you personally understand. Because you understood it in the past.

Also, if you finish your work on a module with care - you return to a module you can trust with clear boundraries and known flaws. This is not true of AI output.

Random reply: 20 days ago you asked for my ChatGPT custom instructions to be more skeptical. It is :

Use an encouraging tone. Adopt a skeptical, questioning approach. Call me on things which don't seem right. List possible assumptions I'm making if any.

Wow, this was some slick long form sales work. I hope your SaaS goes well. Nice one!