I believe the detachment gets exacerbated by the fact that others are simultaneously modifying the codebase at speeds that doesn't allow you to keep up. Depending on how the codebase boundaries and ownership are defined, this directly impacts your ability to reason about the whole system and therefore influence direction.
Code quality aside (n.b. there exist many bad quality codebases before AI), a risk I perceive as an industry is we are making the logic of our businesses dependent on a few big players.
Given the output speed, it's practically impossible for developers to keep up, which directly impacts maintenance: the knowledge that would previously reside in-house, now is becoming dependent on having codebases pre-processed by LLMs.
I hope in the near future local LLMs will gain traction and provide an alternative, otherwise we are in the risky path where businesses are over-reliant on a few big companies.
The same people that pursue economic incentives are who I hear speaking about number of lines produced by developers as a useful metric. I sense a worrying trend toward more is better with respect to output, when the north star IMHO should be to make something only as complex as necessary, but as simple as possible. The best code is no code at all.
Some employees in the company might understand the emotional impact, but companies themselves would only look for certainty in protecting what belongs to them, which will hardly align with fairness or emotions towards employees in a situation like this.
I'm seeing this cultural pattern where developers have started accepting LLM output with very little scrutiny. This ends up code that works on the surface, but most of the times problems are not addressed at their source.
Creating these wrong things is only cheaper with LLMs. Since developers now spend less time and effort to create that wrong thing, they don't feel the need validate or reflect on them so much.
The risk is not the tool itself, but the over-reliance on it and forgoing feedback loops that have made teams stronger, e.g. debugging, testing, and reasoning why something works a particular way.
Thanks for sharing! The link to the PR looks like a wrong paste. I found https://github.com/simonw/tools/pull/181 which seems to be what was intended to be shared instead.
> Wir haben angefangen, unsere gesamte Infrastruktur zu kopieren. Unsere Daten befinden sich nun auf Servern sowohl in der Schweiz wie auch in Deutschland und Norwegen. Wenn nötig, können wir die Systeme in der Schweiz innerhalb von kurzer Zeit herunterfahren. Ich hoffte immer, solche Schritte nie einleiten zu müssen. Aber das Umfeld in der Schweiz ist für uns zurzeit zu unsicher. Wir hatten keine andere Wahl, als unseren Wegzug zu planen.
They started to copy the infrastructure, and the data is currently in Switzerland, Germany, and Norway. They can technically shut down the systems in Switzerland on short time. He (Andy Yen, CEO) always hoped they'd never need to take such steps, but the environment in Switzerland is too insecure for them at the moment. So they had no other choice but to plan their way out.
> Also I don't like that React requires installing Node and compilation tools, this is a waste of time when making a quick prototype. Vue can be used without Node.
> I don’t see enough value in the added complexity and the increasingly complicated API surface.
This very much. For my own work and personal projects, the pages router has been more than enough.
In terms of the complicated API surface and the difficulty to grasp newer concepts introduced with the app router, it continuously reminds me a couple lines of the Zen of Python[0]:
> If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
> If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
reply