By far the most useful thing AI had done for me is let me plow through all that in a fraction of the time I would have before. They're spending a ton of money to make employees more efficient at the pointless bullshit they themselves put in our way.
And before some scrum master shows up and tells me how important stories are, I'm not arguing against planning. I am arguing against pointlessly over planning to make a bunch of suits happy when teams aren't given the kind of time to actually plan that far in advance.
Worse yet, once all those stories are made, they don't want us creating more. It takes a damn review board to get anything changed.
What portion of a job must be done by AI before the human loses their job? 80%? Even 98% (and we’re nowhere near that) will produce a ton of friction when applied to a team of developers.
The problem is that the narrative of imminent job displacement is the prevailing one and becomes self fulfilling.
But we can say that mass displacement of labor in one form or another is the goal because it's the only way to explain the amount of investment that's going into it.
How many 9s until you’re comfortable? Even then, knowing 1000 tasks could likely have at least 1 foundational issue… how do you audit? “Pretty please do the needful” and have another “please ensure they do the needful”. Do you review the 1000 inputs/outputs processed? Don’t get me wrong, am familiar with the “send it” ethos all too well, but at-scale it seems like quite the pickle.
Genuinely curious how most people consider these angles… was tasked with building a model once to perform what literally could’ve otherwise been a SQL query… when I brought this up, it was met with “well we need to do it with AI” I don’t think a humans gonna want to find that needle in a haystack when 100,000 significant documents are originated… but I don’t have to worry about that one anymore thank goodness.
- the 2 people on your team that actually tried are now flattened by the slop code everyone is producing, they will quit soon