The days of stack exchange and such are numbered. Web searches turn up less and less hits that help you solve problems and learn. It won’t be long before AIs replace old school web searches. Software projects will stop writing documentation, when instead and ai can just read the code. The way we learned things is dieing. I don’t know how the juniors will get to be seniors in 5 to 10 years. But following th AI instructions to test out it’s theories isn’t going to work for the vast majority.

I do in fact. Recently I have dodge the night time pages, but a few years ago I was up plenty of time in the night debugging issues. In many of those cases an AI would have been very helpful. Developers do far stupider things because they are sure they won’t break anything. But most of the pages were the result of not enough time spent to make the systems resilient. I dodged the pager currently because as a startup we had so few customers, we couldn’t afford to hire enough people to have a rotation. So I was sortof on call. Like the boss had my number, and if needed he would call it. But it never came to that, partly by luck, and partly because I know how to make things resilient. With the low load, resilient isn’t as hard.

Good luck with that. Most search engines use AI now. Not only where you see it, but in finding the content to make it searchable. AI is here to stay. There are things it is good at, and things it isn’t. Learn what they are, and use it where it makes sense. Or stuck your head in the sand and see how that works put.

Someone created that database. And all those other parts of the infra you use. AI is pretty good for that. But you have it turn on deletion protection, and set up a system that requires another person to approve turning it off. Or you can give it access at creation time, but remember to turn that access off when it is finished being verified.

I did say “and guardrails to stop a single point of failure.” A cicd pipeline itslef doesn’t protect you if it can change that too. You need the same kind of guardrails that would allow a junior dev to f things up. Require multiple people to sign off. Turn on deletion protection… those sorts of things. I work in infra, so I often have direct access to production. More than I should. But not all companies can afford to build out all the tools needed so that I don’t need production access.

Have you met software. Nearly all of it is a cautionary tale. Even before AI. So this is just business as usual for the software industry.

Wrong answer. If you don’t give them access, the alternative (ruling out not using AI because leadership will never go for that) is to hire high school kids to take a task from a manager, ask the ai to do it, then do what the AI says repeatedly to iterate to the solution. The problem with that alt is that it is no better than giving the ai access, and it leaves you with no senior tech people. Instead, you give it access, but only give senior tech people access to the AI. Ones who would know to tell the AI to have a backup of the database, one designed to not let you delete it without multiple people signing off.

Senior tech people aren’t going to spend thier time trying things an AI needs tried to find the solution. So if you don’t give it access, they won’t use it, and eventually they will all be gone. Then you are even further up shit creek than you are now.

The answer overall, is smarter people talking to the AI, and guardrails to stop a single point of failure. The later is nothing new.

I looked it up. It is something to do with how the sensors work. Under certain conditions they will report negative. Either way, the point was, I don’t see this machine being able to do much if it needs around 20%…

Weather channel negative humidity… either way, it’s a far cry from the 20% this thing seems to be designed for.

I think technically what we call humidity is actually relative humidity, so it can go below zero. Ture humidity can’t of course.

Doesn’t SoCal sometimes have negative humidity? 20% seems pretty high to say it works in the desert.

Well, as I get older, my body is breaking down. If it wasn’t for my shortage of memory, I would be even more miserable. So it must be intnetional. Oh… wait, not that memory…

Fully stocked bar in thier personal office? That’s crazy. I wonder if they can claim workmans comp or something.

Well I did interview at Microsoft once a long time ago. They did ask some stupid questions… lol

This here is the point most people fail to grasp. The AI was taught by people. And people are wrong a lot of the time. So the AI is more like us than what we think it should be. Right down to it getting the right answer for all the wrong reasons. We should call it human AI. Lol.

But then you are trusting that 3rd party vendor. Who approved them… MS probably.

On the one hand, google is obviously evil, and it’s intentions here are undoubtedly evil as well. On the other, I do think some kind of verification of developers should exist. Just not in google hands. But who. There really isn’t anyway to create an organization that could be trusted to do this. And of course, the user should be able to chose to install apps from an unverified developer.