This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the latest update on AI slop, Ars Technica, a once reputable publication of over 25 years, has accidentally published a fake AI written article, complete with fake quotes. Unlike the fake story shared by Nate Silver earlier, which was published on a grifter's glorified blog, and somehow syndicated into Yahoo news, this story was actually published by a "real" media company under its own label. To be fair, the ars article bears few of the obvious hallmarks of AI writing, and it also gets a passing score by most AI detectors. I suspect the authors may have lazily asked AI to create a point by point skeleton for the article, then humanly written the words themselves that appeared on the page (excluding the hallucinated fake quotes of course). Fortunately, the article was taken down quickly, but the editors have so far refused to disclaim the use of AI, amd instead are hiding behind the misquotes as a reason to take the article down. It remains to be seen whether or not the use of AI slop was actually a rouge writer violating the policy, or someone using AI as directed by management but just skimping on the checking its answers part.
In other news, Malewarebytes has joined the ranks of Cloudflare and Lenovo as multi-billion dollar multinationational corporations that decided it's necessary to each publish a library of absolutely worthless AI slop, masquerading without disclosure as legitimate content. These zero effort AI takes are ... well ... zero effort, and provide zero added value to society by being published. I have no idea if Malewarebytes is a good company, but it's certainly a real company, with offices around the globe and enterprise contracts with many fortune 500 companies. These are all companies with sales and marketing teams in the dozens or hundreds of people, and likely multiple layers of approval to do anything new, yet they decided that zero effort AI slop takes are perfectly in line with their brand and reputation. There's clearly some kind of incentives (likely mostly SEO) for real companies to publish loads and loads of fake content on their websites, tangentially or not at all related to their actual business, which is extremely unfortunate because it's a waste of time for anyone who happens across this fake content, and even a waste of time for the slopmeister who has to click the button to generate 10 million words of fake content.
I wonder if they're under pressure from higher ups to make stuff using AI? Their bosses have probably been convinced through AI hysteria that extreme gains are possible using AI, and that if those gains aren't materializing for them, it's a problem with how they handle their prompts, rather than it being impossible owing to the deficiencies of the technology. Not wanting to be left behind, they mandate everyone use AI and increase their output in line with what the hypists say is possible, typically an efficiency boost of twenty to one hundred percent, and thus, pointy-haired bosses lacking technical expertise relevant to their companies products, unable to understand the deficiencies of AI output, tank market viability while boosting investor enthusiasm in the short term by playing into popular biases of the financialized scam economy.
The bosses get rich, as do the tech scammers and their affiliates, but the economy inches closer to its doom once the bubble goes pop.
I'm definitely feeling a lot of pressure from the higher ups to get on top of using LLMs. I support some extent of the push, the tools really are impressive and we're seeing real test cases of it providing a lot of benefit. But there is also a dynamic where the different manager fiefdoms are jockeying to show who's team is best utilizing it. I'm usually the shield that stand between our team and upper management bullshit and I recently had to walk my manager off a cliff of requiring each engineer to answer a short questionnaire every day about if they've used AI and for what the previous day after our standup.
Both can be true that there is a lot of value to be gained and that there is a bit of a mania going on where upper managers smell blood in the water. There's a lot of talk about merging teams and helping engineers transfer skills across teams, this is the kind of environment that makes careers as the manager who's team is able to demonstrate a superior implementation stands to gobble up other teams.
The actual labs could pop, but the people using the tech won't. The dotcom bubble didn't get get rid of email when it popped. This stuff is useful and there its use will linger.
That's something which drives me crazy about the whole thing. If LLMs really are that good of a tool, you don't need to mandate them. If someone can get a 10x speedup on his work, he's going to use the tool without management breathing down his neck to do it (indeed he'll probably use it even if management forbids it). All management needs to do is let nature take its course, and if some people are suddenly doing 10x the performance you have them coach the others on how to get that same speed-up. It's completely irrational to require people to use LLMs, rather than focusing on the results. It's nothing but FOMO really, and it's so aggravating to have to deal with.
this is just not really how corporate salary workers function. We had a guy we kept around for probably longer than we should have who refused to learn anything but sql. It's notoriously difficult to track actual productivity in software and because of that a lot of coasting, because when I say "yeah I spent all day yesterday working on the inspection schedule import process" There is probably only one guy on the team who could reasonably say if that was a task that should really take a whole day, and he's not my manager.
The whole concept of FOMO exists because there really are situations where you could be missing out. If you just assume that all the hype is right and there is a tremendous amount of uplift available if your team is using these new tools then wouldn't you want to push them into using them asap? There's always an available excuse in software not to learn new tools, deadlines are weekly and you have real work to do outside of messing with some new instruction set.
I disagree. I'm willing to acknowledge that there exist people who are going to resist change, not care about productivity gains, etc. But that isn't all of the workers or even close to all of the workers in my experience. Most engineers I've worked with love tools that make them more productive, and will use them no matter what management does. Some will even use tools that management forbids in an attempt to be more productive. It's not theoretical, I've seen this behavior.
So as a manager, there really is no rational reason to push people to use LLMs. One needs to focus on the outcome, not the process. Most of your engineers are going to be stoked to get a 10x performance boost if that is real, at which point you can talk to the laggards and say "hey you need to keep up with the standard the rest of the team is setting". But at no point do you need to go out of your way to push a particular methodology.
Sure, but neither does that mean that one is missing out just because one has FOMO. You need to temper that instinct with some thought, and I see no sign at all that managers are doing that.
You get a variety of engineers with very variable commitment to the job and less than perfect insight into who actually are the laggards and who are the 10x performers. I work with mostly ~40-50 year olds with families and stuff to do. Some of them are much more likely to pick up new tools and methods than others who do good work but see their obligation to the company as discharged so long as they provide the same service they have for years or decades. I wear the scrum master hat, although that's rarely more than 10% of my duties as I'm full time coding, and it's often my job to mediate between management that has a distant view into the process and the engineers themselves.
Another element that needs to be understood is that with salary work when a labor saving tool comes along and actually saves you a lot of labor what that means in effect is often that you are given more work to do. If you care about advancement then this is an opportunity to impress, but if you're fifty something and not really expecting to be promoted before you retire the main upside to 10xing your work is that you get to write more jira tickets and do more work overhead instead of coding. To the younger people on the team like me we were indeed already using the tooling before the firm brought in an internally approved version, and I've been promoted in part because of this attitude. But then this process of promoting people more excited about leveraging new tools means that you would expect to find management to be constitutionally more excited about new tools and lower level workers constitutionally more conservative.
What would it take for you to believe that the managers have actually done some reasoning here? From their perspective they see a potential phase shift in how their organization operates and they want to make sure that if it's real they capture it and if it's not real then maybe they've wasted a little bit of budget on tokens. That's really not a hard risk reward tradeoff to take.
Last place I worked, they insisted we use AI to do something. The tools had all sorts of claimed cool features... half of which didn't work at all, most of what remained were locked down due to various security policies, and the rest of which required interaction with someone to get permission to use. Said someone was naturally a bottleneck. I have no doubt that people using the tools on their own (and if with work stuff, against the explicit directive of management) had a better experience, but I expect it's likely true that more experienced developers are less willing to do that. More to lose and more experience with getting nothing but blame for violating policy to get the job done.
LOL, as a career-long IC, "A goddamned miracle" is what it would take.
Things are moving fast. A year ago I was pulling up chatbots on my private hardware to do queries to streamline writing sql and parse documentation. Today the firm has a wrapper with sota models and even some scaffolding to give it access to resources about internal documentation. I'm on the list of people that will get to pilot claude code on work computers soon. In my ~10 years here I've never seen heaven and earth moved so rapidly. But your complaint seems different to @SubstantialFrivolity 's you seem to think your previous place's management wasn't pushing the tools enough, at least to the people provisioning them.
The irony of you refusing to do reasoning on your belief on whether they are refusing to do reasoning is a little rich.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link