sleples

Same thing I'm seeing, all the "AI practitioners" at my company with their advanced workflows are just shipping mountains of slop, and end up either putting the actual work on the reviewers, or the poor soul that's on call when an incident occurs.

I feel like people that have built crazy AI workflows have developed a false sense of confidence that their guardrails are helping them ship clean/correct code with little review when it isn't the case at all. In reality, the models and harnesses are at a point where there's very little difference as long as your prompts are somewhat reasonable, and the quality of the code ultimately comes down to the level of care and effort the implementor puts into it.

I don't think the first people that are going to be replaced by AI are going to be the people who don't use it extensively. The first that will be replaced are going to be those that are using AI mindlessly, because at that point, what are you besides a very expensive human LLM interface? To be clear, I'm not "anti-AI", I use AI quite extensively (in a way that's similar to what's described in the article), I just think that it's being pushed in a completely unsustainable way and the industry is in a collective psychosis over it's capabilities.

OpenAI developers presumably get paid far more than average, so I'd expect better from them, and maybe I'm overrating the average developer, but I can't see a team of average developers struggling with the multitude of ridiculous bugs like OpenAI/Anthropic have for software that amounts to a CLI wrapper making API calls.

We've gone from "you're holding it wrong" to "the training data was bad because humans suck too". Difference is, humans learn from their mistakes.

It's not so simple, especially in the AI slop era. Reviewers are already flooded because people of varying skill opening PRs at a rapid rate and it's not practical to be able to dive deep into every line. It's up to the implementor to take some responsibility and make sure things are correct.

Because of the AI lunacy going on at most companies, if you call any of this out you get labelled a luddite and are put on top of the layoff list, so at least for now it's just something you have to deal with.

People here genuinely think public perception on AI is a model issue, that's how you know it's become an echo chamber.

Part of it is the ridiculous fear-based marketing campaign spearheaded by Anthropic et al. about how AI will automate all jobs and you'll be left behind. Works for enterprise/CEOs, predictably makes regular people hate the mere mention of AI, Asian countries don't have this nearly to the same extent.

Most people I've spoken to in private hate AI in tech too, they just keep quiet out of fear for their job (voice any objection to AI? next on the chopping block), so you only hear the pro AI voices.

1. I don't use Claude Code, no.

2. It's amazing that a CLI wrapper is as buggy as it is.

3. Nevertheless, it's useable, and maybe for a CLI that's enough. I don't want a JS runtime running production to be the same mess.

I was trying to go against the tide for the longest time by providing detailed reviews, understanding every line of code, leave meaningful comments, improve architecture, etc.. Then management started pushing AI more and more and explicitly called out PR reviews as a bottleneck, timelines shortened, and more and more slop got pushed.

I gave up and I'm now a happy "AI enthusiast" at my company, handing out AI slop reviews for AI slop PRs. Deep down, I don't care anymore, if that's what they want, that's what they'll get, and it's no longer my problem if stuff leaks through that brings down prod or worse. Oh, and I'm also in line for a promotion this coming quarter thanks to my new found "velocity".