‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The Normalization of Inexplicable Failures

277 points · 124 comments · pxx

  1. pmarreck · · focus · HN ↗
    I am big on reproducibility (nix aficionado) and determinism (flagging test failures are a red-alert, all-hands-on-deck situation in my world) and correctness.

    I am also big on testing (the correct things). And nine-nines (big on Elixir).

    And... I'm also big on agent-assisted dev. Which requires pretty much every check in the book to stay productive in. And that's fine to me. I've seen bugs that I wouldn't have made myself. And I've also seen my own bugs fixed. They've all gotten fixed in short order. I don't see why this is a problem.

    Raise your personal standards.

    Thing is, the unreliable-software situation was already untenable before agents (in poor hands) made it worse.

    1. lokar · · focus · HN ↗
      I don’t think the author (or many people) doubt that one can (and some will) find a way that does not “suck”

      But it’s pretty clear that most people are not. For whatever reasons (mgmt pressure, trying to get ahead, skill issues, etc) they half ass it, accept the 10% (silent) fail rate and blame the bad outcomes on the AI as if that absolves them. Or, adopt the attitude that 10% fail is fine, and people who say otherwise are being picky, or are anti-ai luddites or whatever. You should accept that things will suck.

      1. gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
        If you took a bad but functional AI generated service and transported it back to 2018 it would have been at worst just mediocre. People do seem forget how dreadful devslop was in the past. I'd take an AI generated mess to disentangle every time over a spaghetti codebase that grew organically in the hands of careless managers.
        1. lokar · · focus · HN ↗
          That’s true. But there were also places with very high standards and good design. And the LLM slop is pushing in there as well.
          1. gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
            Are the managers of these hypothetical places still interested in keeping the high standards and good design? Enshitification isn't inherent to the technology, if this is what you are deriving from the counterexample, it's a business strategy my dude.
            1. lokar · · focus · HN ↗
              It’s a combination of technical capabilities and human nature / incentives in big companies.

              Concepts like good design, security, quality are abstract and hard to measure.

              Time, cost, revenue etc are easy to measure. The “quality” people eventually get push aside by the money people.

              This is not new, but LLMs further tilt the balance

              1. gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
                > This is not new, but LLMs further tilt the balance

                You speak as if llms had their own minds. Every time anyone talks about AI doing this or that they further reinforce this idea that there isn't a person behind all this. There's always someone watching.

                With that said, when you say that llms tilt the balance, who specifically do you say that's driving llms to do that?

                1. lokar · · focus · HN ↗
                  It means an ambitious manager can take on more work by having the team slop out. They move up (very effective leader!), standards fall, other managers have to match the changes. The bill comes due years later after they have moved on (and up).
                  1. gchamonlive · · focus · HN ↗
                    And who pays that bill, actual or technical, is never who created them...
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.