Most people don’t behave this way or have these kinds of problems.

A reminder: tech jobs are their own kind of filter bubble. It’s worth taking a step out of this space every now and again to see what other people are thinking and worrying about.

It’s one of the things I love about my rec hockey games. People there have much more tangible worries: when they’re gonna fix the dock at their vacation homes, if the girl they texted will text back, when will their kid grow out of their threenager phase, etc.

Most of the world is not nearly as preoccupied with AI as this community is. It’s refreshing to see when you can access it.

I suspect that part of it is that people don’t have enough time to mentally incorporate the fix.

Is it weird to submit the MR later, after people have had a chance to digest the issues?

This is a good principle to maintain, I think.

I'm not a professor, but I manage a team of about a dozen people. The maxim I have is: "You're responsible for anything that hits git."

Don't care if the LLM generated it, or the LLM told you if it's a good idea. If you commit it, you are endorsing it as a good idea - so you're the one I'm going to ask about it. I see the same principle at work in your pedagogy.

> I'm not anti-AI (and really, what could I do if I were?) since I use it myself, I'm just anti-slop, especially from my students.

This hits. Especially this part:

> and really, what could I do if I were?

My completely unsolicited opinion: you're doing a responsible thing by teaching these students how to use AI as a reference, and keeping them honest about not using it as a substitute for their own critical thinking.

“AI is too expensive right now” is an accurate title. Plenty of things could change in the future to change that. Off the top of my head:

* end user pricing

* breakthroughs in model efficiency

* better chips to run models

Any one of these things is easily possible in the next three years. Probably sooner.

This, I think, is the LLM/vibe coded app’s current place to shine.

Most internal systems don’t need massive concurrency or redundancy. It’s a webapp that reduces coordination cost between 20ish people. That’s something you can typically vibe code and deploy for ten bucks a month, and create real value.

It’s also worth noting that the US Navy is the only organization with a perfect nuclear safety record.

My point being: by god, let the Navy nukes train everyone else!

”…for Shai-Hulud!!!”

https://www.sauron.systems/

POC generally means “you can demonstrate unintentional behavior”.

“Exploit” means you can gain access or do something malicious.

It’s a fine line. Author’s point is that the LLM was able to demonstrate some malfeasance, not just unintended consequence. That’s a big deal considering that actual malicious intent generally requires more knowhow than raw POC.

...and look how nice it sounds it live in Russia.

Ah, if only.

Those damn intransigent Taiwanese!

It’s almost as if they don’t want to join the PRC.

…like most other independent nations.

I’m gonna need to see some immigration statistics on influx of foreigners into the PRC to believe that claim.

It's a well known creative / brainstorming trick that the best way to have a lot of good ideas is to have a lot of ideas.

Focus on genesis decoupled from critique, then critique later.

Also, somewhat spitefully, find it funny that he has multiple roommates.

Yep. I'm a director now. This is exactly how it is. A big part of being effective in this role is understanding how direct you can be in a given scenario.

A senior manager on reviewing a proposal asks them to synergize with existing efforts: Your work is redundant you're wasting your time.

Option 1 is how I'd say it to a peer whose org is duplicating effort. You can give your advice, but at the end of the day: not my circus, not my clowns.

Option 2 is a more-direct way of how I'd say it to someone in my own org. I'd rephrase to: "Someone else is already doing this; focus your efforts on something more impactful."