Way ahead of you, reddit links are on my "nah, mostly can't be bothered" list since they made that change.
Maintained for years that as soon as they disable old.reddit.com (or make it effectively disabled) I'd abandon the site and well it appears they finally crossed that rubicon.
It's a shame, reddit was pretty great at one point and it's been a slow descent ever since - another useful part of the internet (to me) dies and in part thanks to AI - seems to be a pattern that one.
This is low confidence prediction, but IMO this person’s org is setting itself up for disaster. Who is accountable for all the slop they’re shipping if nobody even knows what it does anymore?
In my experience at many companies, management could literally have a giant poster of a photo of them with the caption "If this stuff goes wrong, this is the person who is accountable". That poster could be displayed at the front door where every single person has to see it at least a couple of times a day
Then the day the shit hits the fan that poster would be mysteriously missing and they would deny all memory of any such poster during the meeting where they are busy blaming me
I had a manager in a previous job tell me it was my fault for not warning them that it would go wrong (which I had, in writing, I had the emails (plural) and meeting notes and recordings of the meetings) and then it shifted to "well you should have gotten the message through to me, it's not my fault you didn't".
There is a certain point where you just have to let it go, it's a "Scorpion and Frog" situation with some bosses.
This whole post reads like a frustration with a lack of thought.
I think it's worth distinguishing 'LLM assistance' based on how much thought/effort went into the prompt.
e.g. It's popular to hate on "my colleague just copy-pasted my question into the LLM and copy-pasted the response". Because the colleague added nothing by copy-pasting. But if I'm unfamiliar with some system, I ask a question, and someone gives an LLM response prompted with the right key words, that's more useful than I could have gotten myself.
e.g. OP claims to hate using LLMs, but also said that he thought that by using LLMs he was able to get a tighter comment to post. -- I don't really see the problem with that? If you don't want to use the LLM, post the raw rant. If you care about the quality & think an LLM improved the result, then... well, I guess if he just copy-pasted the result without reading it, that'd be silly.
"Expectations of productivity went up" seems a reasonable response to the excitement of seeing how impressive LLM coding agents are at some tasks. But it'd be nice to pare it back after seeing evidence that the productivity hasn't really improved.
EDIT: my experience has been that LLM coding agents, although better than you'd think, aren't as good as you'd hope. "You don't have to put thought into it any more" doesn't match my experience. But, if you've achieved the ability to productively craft great software without thinking & without being involved in the process, I'd be curious to learn how.
Maintained for years that as soon as they disable old.reddit.com (or make it effectively disabled) I'd abandon the site and well it appears they finally crossed that rubicon.
It's a shame, reddit was pretty great at one point and it's been a slow descent ever since - another useful part of the internet (to me) dies and in part thanks to AI - seems to be a pattern that one.
I assume this is astroturfing.
Related: https://elliotmilco.substack.com/p/who-is-accountable-when-n...
Whoever management in the future decides is accountable and weirdly... it's seldom them.
Then the day the shit hits the fan that poster would be mysteriously missing and they would deny all memory of any such poster during the meeting where they are busy blaming me
There is a certain point where you just have to let it go, it's a "Scorpion and Frog" situation with some bosses.
I think it's worth distinguishing 'LLM assistance' based on how much thought/effort went into the prompt.
e.g. It's popular to hate on "my colleague just copy-pasted my question into the LLM and copy-pasted the response". Because the colleague added nothing by copy-pasting. But if I'm unfamiliar with some system, I ask a question, and someone gives an LLM response prompted with the right key words, that's more useful than I could have gotten myself.
e.g. OP claims to hate using LLMs, but also said that he thought that by using LLMs he was able to get a tighter comment to post. -- I don't really see the problem with that? If you don't want to use the LLM, post the raw rant. If you care about the quality & think an LLM improved the result, then... well, I guess if he just copy-pasted the result without reading it, that'd be silly.
"Expectations of productivity went up" seems a reasonable response to the excitement of seeing how impressive LLM coding agents are at some tasks. But it'd be nice to pare it back after seeing evidence that the productivity hasn't really improved.
EDIT: my experience has been that LLM coding agents, although better than you'd think, aren't as good as you'd hope. "You don't have to put thought into it any more" doesn't match my experience. But, if you've achieved the ability to productively craft great software without thinking & without being involved in the process, I'd be curious to learn how.