I'd argue it's pretty much like monitoring, which certainly benefits from multiple people seeing the same stats and alerts. I agree it's at odds with CI/CD and should probably not block anything, like deterministic checks commonly do.
One fascinating thing about LLMs is the degree of evangelism it inspires in some. You can explain some of that with paid micro influencers, people invested in the success of AI, consultants looking for workshop opportunities and all that, but I know enough people with no skin in the game at all, that turned into very vocal advocates.
I think to some degree, that effect is also at play here. CEOs, product managers etc are simply amazed, and want to spread the good news. I doubt they can even _comprehend_ that others might not be as excited as them.
One character I find interesting is Ezra Klein from the New York Times who desperately wants to see something positive come out of markets and industry and has an enthusiasm for AI which is not shared by his audience. He struggles to understand that skepticism and I think that's bad for his project.
At least he's not one of the many mooks who are doing ChatGPT-assisted (Grok-assisted?) blogging and boasting about it, even when it goes wrong, like Casey Handmer.
The entire purpose of people like Ezra Klein, Derek Thomas, and the elite journalist + consultant establishment is to simply preserve the neoliberal order and make sure any questions regarding it are confined in a box they defined where the outcomes never address material needs of the people.
I think comparing Klein and Thompson is like comparing Chess and Tic-Tac-Toe. At the very least Klein patiently reminds Jewish people that they really can be the baddies if they choose to be.
Lol. Disregarding risk of bringing Chess to TTT's level, it's bc Klein seems to have a broader actually inclusive self-identity. so usually, when he reminds, he is also reminding himself..
You also have to consider a ( I would argue large ) percentage of those evangelists are simply lying for financial gain. They see profit, or at least reduced costs, and quite simply don't give a shit about customer experience or anything like that.
I think there’s a lot of that dream — note how many of them became AI experts after striking out in cryptocurrency — but also a huge undercurrent of desperation. The rich guys who run most of the economy have made it clear that they want mass layoffs and that LLMs are the tool they’ll use to get there, so these guys are hoping that if they get on board early enough they’ll be the people doing it to everyone else rather than the targets. I’m not sure how successful that’ll be but it’s somewhat understandable how people might find themselves thinking that’s the best option available in the current economy.
I'm sure there is an effect when people talk on socials (linkedin, company intra etc) that they are marketing themselves. This is why I won't take any claims on socials that seriously.
I can't decide how much I like it myself. It can help me with really complicated projects. Software and otherwise. It has completely replaced my usage of non site local search engines. But I don't like how lazy it makes me. I don't vibe code, I understand what it is doing, and have it make adjustments typing it examples of what I want. But I can see myself getting lazier quckly. And when I find a task too hard for it I waste a lot of time trying to get my prompts correct before taking over.
SEO is definitely a relevant component still, AI mode does a traditional search under the hood. Gaming the system to rank high on the index is still going to matter. But it'll be less about tricking people into clicking and more about tricking LLMs into considering the information relevant and authoritative. For someone using traditional search, I'd wager that would actually improve the results a bit over time.
Then again, SEO gaming got a whole lot cheaper with LLMs, spammers spam even if there's not a great return, as long as it's cheap for them.
Yeah, plus it's a bit... single minded. A static single page site is _quite_ "agent ready". Scores 0 here. It's not like it'll need an MCP or whatever.
So AI generated code doesn't benefit from stable foundations maintained by third parties? Fascinating take I don't currently agree with. Whether it's AI or hand written, using solid pre-existing components and having as little custom code as possible is my personal approach to keep things maintainable.
Agreed, it is different in terms of there being no guarantee that a specific piece of software even has an exploit. If you don't want to break into a specific piece of software, or even a specific system, I would argue that the law of averages applies: If you just invest enough, you'll likely find _something_ worth exploiting.
In other terms, I feel the argument from TFA generally checks out, just on a different level than "more GPU wins". It's one up: "More money wins". That's based on the premise that more capable models will be more expensive, and using more of it will increase the likelihood of finding an exploit, as well as the total cost. What these model providers pay for GPUs vs R&D, or what their profit margin is, I'd consider less central.
But then again, AI didn't change this, if you have more money you can find more exploits: Whether a model looks for them or a human.
They are, wow. I had this age old Yen conversion wired into my brain: 100 Yen is one Euro. Boy did that change in the last decade or so, it's only half that now.
I typically install both systems on the same disk, different partitions. Then work with additional SSDs strictly for game storage. Only annoying bit is that some games _need_ to be on C, but very few in my experience. If you have enough space to shrink your Windows partition, that could work without waiting for an SSD. Though I guess the one OS per disk setup is ultimately cleaner.
Been dual booting for >20 years now. It's nice that some games work on Linux pretty well these days, and of course I had fun messing with Wine manually to get some stuff to work decades ago. But it really doesn't bother me too much to reboot when switching between gaming and literally anything else.
The issue that has occurred a few times is that some windows updates will decide that they 'own' the disk it's installed on or knows better than whoever is running the system, and overwrite any other boot manager with window's own and you may need to break out a live boot to recover it. Using a single isolated disc at OS install time (if you can have multiple physical drives) and using a motherboard boot selection hotkey means that risk likely goes away.
I use BIOS boot selection to dual-boot. MS has broken it twice. I turned off SecureBoot now and just don't run games that require it.
Apparently you can get a mobo with switchable BIOS config (or was it just a switchable SSD?) so the OS didn't even know that there's a second OS around. If there's no connection of the other OS then MS can't break it [as easily]!
IMO it must be malicious, because otherwise it would be caught with remedial testing. I can't believe MS don't include dual boot setups in their testing.
Microsoft got rid of QA years ago. If it was targeted sabotage they could break dual boot setups every single Patch Tuesday. It's just disrespect for users. Like how Copilot and other shovelware such as Candy Crush keep getting reinstalled every few updates, and privacy settings reset every once in a while. Dual booting is likely not even on their radar.
Many newer computers now have a rudimentary bootloader integrated in the EFI. Some are actually quite nice, allowing you to browse partitions to choose which image to boot. HPs have this. You just hit a key during uefi “post” and voilà.
The functionality is present on my new Lenovo laptop, various generations of HP elite/pro books/desks, old asus mobo and newer cheap gigabyte mobo, 7th gen intel nuc.
> It's nice that some games work on Linux pretty well these days
This description doesn't really do it justice. ~75% of top 100 games work well out of the box/with minimal tinkering according to https://www.protondb.com/dashboard (it varies a bit based on the rating scale)
Many work perfectly and many work even better than they do on Windows. Valve's work really changed the game over the past few years.
> Isolated QA should not exist because anything a QA engineer can do manually can be automated.
Well, sort of maybe, but it's not always economical. For a normal web app - yeah I guess. Depends on the complexity of the software and the environment / inputs it deals with.
And then there's explorative testing, where I always found a good QA invaluable. Sure, you can also automate that to some degree. But someone who knows the software well and tries to find ways to get it to behave in unexpected ways, also valuable.
I would agree that solid development practices can handle 80% of the overall QA though, mainly regression testing. But those last 20%, well I think about those differently.
> it's not always economical. For a normal web app - yeah I guess
What do you define as "normal"? I can't think of anything harder to test than a web app.
Even a seemingly trivial static HTML site with some CSS on it will already have inconsistencies across every browser and device. Even if you fix all of that (unlikely), you still haven't done your WCAG compliance, SEO, etc.
The web is probably the best example case for needing a QA team.
> And then there's explorative testing, where I always found a good QA invaluable.
Yes, I agree. We do this too. Findings are followed by a post-mortem-like process: - fix the problem
- produce an automated test
- evaluate why the feature wasn't autotested properly
> I think there's also a pretty good chance that if a robot that could mine the same cobalt with no human intervention appeared tomorrow, many folks would complain about "hard working cobalt miners in Africa losing their livelihood to automation".
Well, yeah? Just because the current work safety situation is bad, doesn't mean being out of a job couldn't be worse. I'd love a world where more automation meant less, safer, higher paying work for everyone. Our world never worked like that, to my knowledge, and I'm not sure it ever will.
> I'd love a world where more automation meant less, safer, higher paying work for everyone. Our world never worked like that, to my knowledge, and I'm not sure it ever will.
I'm not sure what you mean because that's literally what happened. The only remaining caveat is that it's not yet "everyone", but even that part is improving. If I was born in feudal Europe I would have spent my life planting, weeding, and de-pesting potatoes by hand instead of sitting at a computer in a climate-controlled office.
