Giving objects interiority is a very Pratchett move.

I guess that means quality control was...disgregarded.

The LLM is bounded by it's training data, and relying on it means we are as well.

EDIT: dude have you heard of the s in https, http://johntantalo.com gets flagged.

Pray to @dang that you will make the front page of HN?

Seems stifling. We'll need someway to reward human creativity and out-of-bounds thinking before our greatest corpus of human intellect is a bounded by whenever and whatever was trained on.

https://prospect.org/2024/05/14/2024-05-14-trendy-nonsense-g...

Are they reasonably documented/audited/put into any sort of version control like a lot of internal tooling? Or are they the kind of the thing that gets whacked together on the fly in a "move spreadsheet data from A to B", "I want a list of people's schedules with custom highlighting" kind of things.

Not doubting your productivity increase, I'm just curious how people quantify that when they say it.

Normally waterfall works where the scope is extremely-well defined and articulated in design plans. Which shortens dev time because prior to AI code was mostly deterministic. Here we have to do waterfall level of documentation while iterating on a non-deterministic solution (code gen) to non-deterministic requirements (per usual).

It's bonkers.

I still think the technology is cool though.

And to answer the questioner.. Have you worked with a PM? Most of the ones I've worked with try to be simultaneously in charge yet not responsible for anything. Validating something implies skill and responsibility.