> “AI always thinks and learns faster than us, this is undeniable now”
No, it neither thinks nor learns. It can give an illusion of thinking, and an AI model itself learns nothing. Instead it can produce a result based on its training data and context.
I think it important that we do not ascribe human characteristics where not warranted. I also believe that understanding this can help us better utilize AI.
Failure typically comes from two directions. Unknown and changing requirements, and management that relies on (often external) technical (engineering) leadership that is too often incompetent.
These projects are often characterized by very complex functional requirements, yet are undertaken by those who primarily only know (and endlessly argue about) non-functional requirements.
This seems to derive from the “skills” feature. A set of “meta tools” that supports granular discovery of tools, but whereas you write (optional) skills code yourself, a second meta tool can do it for you in conjunction with (optional) examples you can provide.
But many computer applications are models of systems real or imagined. Those systems are not mathematical models. That everything is an “algorithm” is the mantra of programmers that haven’t been exposed to different types of software.
I see this a lot in what LLMs know and promote in terms of software architecture.
All seem biased to recent buzzwords and approaches. Discussions will include the same hand-waving of DDD, event-sourcing and hexagonal services, i.e. the current fashion. Nothing of worth apparently preceded them.
I fear that we are condemned to a future where there is no new novel progress, but just a regurgitation of those current fashion and biases.
This is effectively a product, not a feature (or bug). Ask the submitter how you can you determine if this meets functional and non-functional requirements, to start with?
My first reaction is how do they know? Are these all people sharing their chats (willingly) with OpenAI, or is opting out of “helping improve the model” for privacy a farce?
Does OpenAI's terms prevent them from looking at chats at all? I assumed that if you don't "help improve the model", it just means that they won't feed your chats in as training data, not that they won't look at your chats for other purposes.
This seems to assume that any endeavor in software is something entirely established from scratch. There are no patterns, experiences or reusable parts that can be relied on. A hack at it until it works methodology.
Accordingly, it seems to imply that we as developers can’t be accountable for anything but effort. It’s a sad condemnation of our industry, and at odds with any (normal) commercial undertaking that has limited resources that must be allocated among competing alternatives.
Any real manager knows the basics of calculating the best choice amongst competing alternatives by establishing projected cashflows and calculating the PV (present value) of each. But not for software - we’re too special.
(normal) - one that can sustain itself on a commercial basis, rather than just on injected capital or borrowed funds.
I think this talk speaks to an idea that is true for early stage and small businesses. That is software development is a strategic investment not a tactical one. Maybe I don't need a product database and an API just yet, I could use a spreadsheet. But I choose to do it because software can enable teams to capitalize on opportunities more effectively.
Of course, once software becomes mature there will be tactical decisions in the margins. But greenfield software is usually a strategic decision.
I am not sure this comment it is in any way related to the article it is commentating on. To name one example the comment complains about the absence of PV calculations while the article actually specifically describes this.
No, it neither thinks nor learns. It can give an illusion of thinking, and an AI model itself learns nothing. Instead it can produce a result based on its training data and context.
I think it important that we do not ascribe human characteristics where not warranted. I also believe that understanding this can help us better utilize AI.
reply