> Granted, you can still rush the work, not test properly, neglect good planning and engineering. Which is the core point of my reply and not something to just be casually handwaved, thank you very much.
Minor correction: LinkedIn, not twitter. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/galenh_principal-software-eng... > Because it wasn't about "engineers should write 1M LOC per month of product code" it was "we want to scale…
The other comment got the answer already, but yes. It's a cost problem. LLMs are designed this way so they could be trained off unstructured text, which critically can be obtained by just scraping things off the…
Realistically, we are. This is not some arbitrary design choice, it's the core compromise to make LLMs viable to train at all.
The point there is that it is MUCH easier to get corporate to agree to something when the cost is nebulous and being paid anyway. If you get a senior dev to clean up some tech debt, how much did that cost the company?…
"Just have a stochastic machine redo the code with no oversight" This is an utterly terrible idea.
> so there has always been financial incentives to reduce tech debt. Yes. In practice, this does not weigh against organisational resistance. AI really makes it worse by adding an explicit numerical cost to doing…
I think you misunderstand why tech debt lingers around. It's not a capacity or capability problem. Organisations just don't want to deal with the accountability involved with "touching cold code". Whether it's a human…
> Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. People like you would be why I put "(titled)" in the reply. > That's a very bold claim. Really anyone…
> Sure, but it remains a big enough problem that human intervention and review is still necessary for any serious work across all use cases and industries. Another important consideration: Hallucinations getting less…
> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. That's…
> There's no other realistic explanation except that they're making bank. If they were, they'd never shut up about it. Yet they keep quiet about the financials.
> There's plenty of noise about banks holding large amounts of bad private credit debt. This is still only big enough to cause funny banking collapses not actual 2008 scale financial disasters. Banks hold a lot of bad…
> the big providers are charging full freight for inference. Except they're not. Anthropic's claims of temporary profitability line up exactly with when SpaceX is giving them discounted compute, OpenAI's such a shitfest…
Re-read what you wrote yourself. What is being sneered at is these prototypes being put into production. What is being demanded is that additional engineering time to make sure it's actually up to scratch.
> Keep an open mind or you’ll be left behind. An open mind to what? To yolo deployment of dodgy code straight into production? Moving fast and breaking things? > I’ve personally seen this workflow produce real…
> That first pillar is still there. Maybe the author isn't aware of the impact they have, but I know, with the evidence of reverted PRs, that when I step outside my area of deep knowledge I can no longer call BS on the…
More or less correct. It's not that management believes in "9 offshore juniors", it's just that they don't know (nor care to confirm) who's actually working for them at the outsourcing firm. The combined incentive of…
> Telling me that it’s harder to get a professional job that I’m qualified for than it is to walk up to a McDonald’s or whatever and get a job is not shocking. This is so very easily said but how else is this supposed…
> I wonder what SpaceX's margins are on these contracts. In the Anthropic deal they have to be negative; Anthropic's announced higher margins during the deal.
> Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved. Same thing they used to say about Lehman.
"This didn't happen, except for that few times where it did happen and massively blew up in the media" That you fail to understand why those students took such great offense to what was said at those speeches doesn't…
Their job, EXPLICITLY, isn't to maximize returns. People don't buy the S&P 500 because they buy the index because it spreads risk. That they won't get maximum returns is the intended risk tradeoff they want. That people…
> There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance. The youth are facing an enormous employment crisis. Many have found themselves completely unemployable…
The contract has some clauses that lets Google pay less if SpaceX can't deliver the full amount of GPUs. But $12/hr is probably quite accurate. SpaceX' datacenters are horrifyingly expensive, and regular GPUs are being…
> Granted, you can still rush the work, not test properly, neglect good planning and engineering. Which is the core point of my reply and not something to just be casually handwaved, thank you very much.
Minor correction: LinkedIn, not twitter. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/galenh_principal-software-eng... > Because it wasn't about "engineers should write 1M LOC per month of product code" it was "we want to scale…
The other comment got the answer already, but yes. It's a cost problem. LLMs are designed this way so they could be trained off unstructured text, which critically can be obtained by just scraping things off the…
Realistically, we are. This is not some arbitrary design choice, it's the core compromise to make LLMs viable to train at all.
The point there is that it is MUCH easier to get corporate to agree to something when the cost is nebulous and being paid anyway. If you get a senior dev to clean up some tech debt, how much did that cost the company?…
"Just have a stochastic machine redo the code with no oversight" This is an utterly terrible idea.
> so there has always been financial incentives to reduce tech debt. Yes. In practice, this does not weigh against organisational resistance. AI really makes it worse by adding an explicit numerical cost to doing…
I think you misunderstand why tech debt lingers around. It's not a capacity or capability problem. Organisations just don't want to deal with the accountability involved with "touching cold code". Whether it's a human…
> Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. People like you would be why I put "(titled)" in the reply. > That's a very bold claim. Really anyone…
> Sure, but it remains a big enough problem that human intervention and review is still necessary for any serious work across all use cases and industries. Another important consideration: Hallucinations getting less…
> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. That's…
> There's no other realistic explanation except that they're making bank. If they were, they'd never shut up about it. Yet they keep quiet about the financials.
> There's plenty of noise about banks holding large amounts of bad private credit debt. This is still only big enough to cause funny banking collapses not actual 2008 scale financial disasters. Banks hold a lot of bad…
> the big providers are charging full freight for inference. Except they're not. Anthropic's claims of temporary profitability line up exactly with when SpaceX is giving them discounted compute, OpenAI's such a shitfest…
Re-read what you wrote yourself. What is being sneered at is these prototypes being put into production. What is being demanded is that additional engineering time to make sure it's actually up to scratch.
> Keep an open mind or you’ll be left behind. An open mind to what? To yolo deployment of dodgy code straight into production? Moving fast and breaking things? > I’ve personally seen this workflow produce real…
> That first pillar is still there. Maybe the author isn't aware of the impact they have, but I know, with the evidence of reverted PRs, that when I step outside my area of deep knowledge I can no longer call BS on the…
More or less correct. It's not that management believes in "9 offshore juniors", it's just that they don't know (nor care to confirm) who's actually working for them at the outsourcing firm. The combined incentive of…
> Telling me that it’s harder to get a professional job that I’m qualified for than it is to walk up to a McDonald’s or whatever and get a job is not shocking. This is so very easily said but how else is this supposed…
> I wonder what SpaceX's margins are on these contracts. In the Anthropic deal they have to be negative; Anthropic's announced higher margins during the deal.
> Truly a brilliant deal for everyone involved. Same thing they used to say about Lehman.
"This didn't happen, except for that few times where it did happen and massively blew up in the media" That you fail to understand why those students took such great offense to what was said at those speeches doesn't…
Their job, EXPLICITLY, isn't to maximize returns. People don't buy the S&P 500 because they buy the index because it spreads risk. That they won't get maximum returns is the intended risk tradeoff they want. That people…
> There is a more of a generational divide in perception and discussion. I would also say there is a loss of nuance. The youth are facing an enormous employment crisis. Many have found themselves completely unemployable…
The contract has some clauses that lets Google pay less if SpaceX can't deliver the full amount of GPUs. But $12/hr is probably quite accurate. SpaceX' datacenters are horrifyingly expensive, and regular GPUs are being…