In a shocking twist, the prompter works in VC.

I am ashamed I worked there.

1. You smash out rubbish as quickly as you can.

2. You get credit for "shipping" and "moving fast".

3. It is later learned by management that the rubbish is rubbish. But crucially, they do not view bugs as arising from how the work was done. Rather, it is treated as if it is an uncontrollable natural process.

4. Fixing high-profile rubbish is prioritized.

5. The rubbish is smothered with still more rubbish that moves the observable rubbishness to elsewhere in the codebase.

6. You get credit for "better engineering" and "moving fast".

Nobody is properly incentivized to prevent rubbish. Only to produce it and then to produce more of it.

Sometimes it's nice to be able to just bang out some code without looking everything up. IDEs in an IDE-friendly language make this awareness accessible in the immediate frame, but don't necessarily help with having a mental menu of possibilities to choose from.

That said: I find spaced repetition utterly crushing, so I only use it very sparingly.

It's what management rewards.

And really, ranges are an amazing substrate for this. I've had to do this by hand in a ... less featuresome ... SQL-speaking DB and it was clunky and performed fairly unimpressively.

Which loop it belongs to in the model is left as an exercise for the reader.

Sterman, Repenning and other collaborators wrote several papers after this one. All fascinating and almost entirely depressing.

Especially since MIT's Sloan school, where system dynamics first became a discipline, is just around the bend from Harvard Business school, where system dynamics first became ignored.

1. It coincidentally aligns with the interests of the C-suite. They are mostly compensated in stock, and compensation mostly set by other members of the C-suite elite. And gosh darn it wouldn't you know it, they all think it's a jolly good idea.

2. It is taught in B-school, so most of the C-suite believe it or have never thought seriously about its deeper meaning. "Shareholder value" is easy to mouth, but breaks down almost immediately after trivial scrutiny. Which shareholders, pray tell Mr Babbage? What is value to them? Are they just are hivemind with perfectly identical interests, opinions, attention span, background knowledge, experience, access to capital, prestige, ...?

IMO a team like yours can either:

* Use LLMs, in which case you aren't "anti-AI".

* Not use LLMs currently, but the non-use is not due to following a principle, in which case you aren't "anti-AI".

* Not use LLMs and promise never to do so.

I'm happy you are trying something new. But you hurt yourself by engaging in something very old: disingenuity.

(edits for presentation and grammar)

What I saw was not ~ * ~ actual work ~ * ~. It wasn't "real stuff" either. What I witnessed was the most spectacular immolation of surplus I have ever seen. So much time, money and intelligence being pissed up against a wall in order to show the boss what a jolly good job you're doing.

When I tried to use it for actual work -- with, I repeat, utterly limitless amounts of tokens to burn -- it sucked balls. No matter how breathless the hype that this generation had finally cracked it, they all sucked. It produced flabby, buggy code by the gallon. It routinely fucked up and wasted my time. More than once I would wrestle with something for two or three days, give up, then bang a good solution in about an hour. Yes, I used rules and skills and .md files and and and and and and. Skill issue, you say? Well look, if hammers shot spikes through my hand one time in 20 then the skill issue is using the bloody doomhammer in the first place.

The actual work being done here is manic bullshitting and pissing in the village well. Shipping clanker clinker isn't productivity.

This is value stream mapping. No, business process reengineering. No, systems dynamics. No, a Krebs cycle. No, ...

People could always do these things. It was never a sword that only AI enthusiasts could draw from the stone. By god people, the AI has read books, can't you give it a bash too?