If your expectation is to treat it as a tool, then you're wrong.

I guess that's where the disconnect lies.

Why and how do people hand work to juniors?

You have a rough idea where you want to go, you have a rough idea what needs to be done, and then you iterate.

For example, you think "okay, I need some way of validating this" and then you tell it to run the software to generate test data.

While errors may creep in, you should be able to validate that step.

And then you use that test data to validate whatever next steps it should be doing.

It's essentially the same workflow as any mapping out of something new, but with the individual mapping steps being done by a drone. You do still draw the actual map, do logistics and strategize.

It's not easy work, but it's also not difficult work. What it is is laborious, and that's where LLMs help.

__

To stick with your database format question:

If the software uses that data, it also needs code to parse and interact (with) it.

This code resides within it, and you can forcefully pull it out.

That step of "write me a spec for this data format based on this code. Build a parser in python and build test cases using this DB file" can be done agentically (when sliced into small logical blocks of work orders).

Certainly not unattended, but no AI should ever be unattended.

But if you closely guide it, support it with tools like Ghidra and force force force force force a process with many sanity checks and quintuple-checks, it's possible.

What previously needed a whole team and months might be one guy, a lot of tokens and 1-3 weeks. Doable, fun, and interesting.

__

Judging by the downvotes, I guess people mistook the initial comment for HN VC fueled AI delusions and I can't blame them for that. That's not what it was tho.

Letting people get away with that has led to the unpleasant state of the internet we have now and mild correction simply doesn't work.

Hence I've pointed at the exact holes/fault lines. Nothing personal. I wish you a lot of fun gaming on linux.

Makes sense, yeah. Nice talking to you.

And how much does that cutting edge tech truly matter for the core game experience. I think the steam hardware survey might have some answers there and can tell us for which level of hardware currently developed games are being optimized for.

And that's just the currently developed ones. Not the massive backlog that existed before OLED or microLED HDR screens.

Tiny group. Tiny.

___

Btw, super lame to try to improve your argument after the fact with edits, but, well. Anyway.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

They can actually do that. They may not like it, but they can.

Most people just want a computer that does the word, the chrome and that's about it.

Why would you do the hard work when you can also just not do that?

I mean I agree with "people are not suited for the job", however, I also feel like often, "the job is not suited for people".

It's rot all the way down, essentially.

Previously, shame (and other pressure) was just applied without first empathically inspecting why the node was acting in the way it did, thinking that just enough force will surely solve the problem. It kinda did, but with lots of collateral.

Essentially, the security consultants (and everyone else involved) were just being lazy and not doing their job correctly.

But now we have this overcorrection, because people are still lazy and do not want to do their job correctly, which leads to the systems failing in a different way.

___

The solution would be to understand the individual node and apply the correct corrective measure. This can be shame, but it might also not be. And the level of it is also highly dependent on the situation.

This is a hard problem to solve, but it needs to be solved for good results.

The problem here being that scaling that up is hard, but everything needed to hyperscale. With either the individual nodes or the system integrity picking up the slack.

Yes in general, because usually it's culture and not an individual failing. No in specific situations, because it's not just culture but also some people are just the weakest link.

Only focusing on either of these while ignoring the other is going to lead to bad results.

If it was actually deserved, why does it bother you?

This is incorrect. You don't have to. In fact, you shouldn't.

There can be situation in which stuff will need to happen regardless, yes, but that does not require lying and probably works even better when one does not lie.

The post then continues with more such falsehoods and incorrect learnings one could deconstruct, but the spirit of all of them is mostly the same, making that mostly redundant.

Managing is hard and it's easy to fall into these tropes. But they are just that. Easy tropes. They are not the way.

Which, don't get me wrong, is generally fine, because not everything has to be functional, art is important, bla bla bla. Problem however is when the algorithm gets involved and "being not part of the mainstream" becomes a mainstream metric to optimize for.

This feels like that, and - as it often has happened - it weaponizes the usual stuff to defend itself. Which we do not want, because the stuff it weaponizes is actually important, so it should not be tainted by the big value extraction machine in the cloud.

How?

I do make mistakes though. Please check results.

That was a nice time. Let us get back to that time. Use open weights models. Own stuff.

The user here is right in what they said but wrong in why they said it, essentially.

Or opus to opus

Or really any new thing to old thing