• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 11th, 2024

help-circle



  • In all seriousness using AI for codegen is at best shortsighted negligence. You know that problem huge long running software projects have where it becomes a nightmare to change anything? That’s some proportion of poor architectural design, lack of cleanup or refactor time, and poor understanding of the code by developers. Poor architectutal design can be repaired by cleanup and refactoring, so both of those issues end up being management/planning failures more than anything. Not understanding the codebase is much more complex. It can be caused by attrition causing loss of institutional knowledge, the code base growing faster than anyone can keep track of, the team being so large no one can stay on top of things, too much time passing since anyone has looked at or changed parts, lots of reasons. The only solution is doing a long audit and associated cleanup and refactoring. If you don’t it just takes forever to change anything because of all the knock on effects that no one can predict, meaning delays and bugs. When you use AI tools the code base grows very quickly, too quick to really comprehend, and you get shitty architecture to go along with it. You’re just speedrunning enterprise software or spending all your time reviewing slop code. It’s like a drug, the first time it does something fast and well you feel it’s so great, but it will never live up to that because it secretly sucks and can only ever suck. Best case it slows you down and you get good software at the end. Worst case you spend all your time wrestling with it and never get a finished product.










  • This is kind of a bad faith black and white argument. No one is arguing for a draconian regulation of car designs. There’s already a system of regulations and review in place for certifying new car designs are safe and compliant with regulations, and the danger this design introduces in the event of an emergency should have prevented it from being certified safe for use. Any idiot can see with 30 seconds of thought that a car door you need power to open is inherently unsafe and will get people killed in situations where a manual door wouldn’t. It’s like arguing car manufacturers should be allowed to install a gun in the middle of every airbag that shoots the passenger in the event of a crash just because there’s no regulation specifically banning them from doing it. That’s not how the law works and it’s not how safety regulations work.



  • There’s the thing though. Our bodies don’t really know what’s good for them with perfect accuracy. They evolved to survive in an environment of extreme and unpredictable scarcity, so your body telling you to eat the sour gummy worms is the correct choice in that context. Historically the job of the brain was to figure out how to get a steady supply without dieing. Now we have to manage our bodies like idiot babies because if we just listened to every impulse we’d end up with a host of health problems ultimately leading to reduced fertility and access to sexual partners. I mean that has always been true really, it’s just never been more true than now.



  • This article is… difficult to critique. There’s too many things to refute so I’ll just undermine the title. We’ve known about an operation that can undo any rotation for a lot (hundreds?) of years. 3D rotations represented as quaternions or rotation matrices are trivially invertible, and their inverse literally undoes the rotation. For a rotation matrix the inverse is simply the transpose of the matrix, and for a quaternion it’s the complex conjugate (3 of the 4 numbers have their sign flipped). These operations have been used in computer algorithms likely for as long as we have had computers. Honestly this whole thing feels like a big fat nothing so I’m gonna stop letting it steal my time.