Why would you care about architecture? It was an issue when humans were writing code so architecture mattered in the sense that you needed a sweet spot between current requirements and future extensions.
The agent can rewrite half your codebase in one day, so architecture stops mattering for the most part.
Why try to make things that are good? Why care about anything? Why not just turn our minds over to the machines, and let them rock us to sleep like babies?
Possibly because the goal is the end product that serves a purpose and has value, not the process.
If you can make your product, make the customer happy, and make your money to enjoy your life and secure your families future… why care who or what or how (as long as it’s ethical obviously).
Every choice has a cost. The question comes as to when you pay it. Your idea of an end products behavior, and the end products behavior when it interacts with reality may differ significantly.
For example is unknowingly writing a security flaw ethical, when you could have used a set of processes to reduce them before release that would have make the entire thing take longer and cost more. Seems like programmers need a lot more ethics classes as ethics are part of any large scale process.
I agree with most of what you are saying, but I believe that this view on people's ethics is a little naive. Remember that we are talking about AI contexts here. Everything it infects has a questionale track record w.r.t. ethics on many levels.
Besides, ethics come from upbringing and social influences, not from attending a mandatory ethics class.
> Possibly because the goal is the end product that serves a purpose and has value, not the process.
This is not true for everybody or for every project. Sometimes it’s about the code and not about what it does. Sometimes it’s about learning. Sometimes it’s about the fun of creating. “Only the end product matters” is a narrow view of the world of software development.
Because even if the rewrite worked, and worked perfectly, you've (a) lost a day, and (b) there's no guarantee that you won't have to do that all over again in a few days' time, because you're still not thinking about the architecture.
But if the codebase is large enough, and if you don't have tests for everything, you'll likely lose stuff along the way. So you'll then spend at least another day tidying up the rewrite, just getting it back to where you were two days ago.
Does that sound like fun? Wouldn't it be easier to just plan it correctly the first time?
I think the argument is that there won't be a reason to read the code. If you want a change, just let the agent change it.
Similar to the output of a compiler. Nobody (with very few exceptions) reviews its machine code output. No reason to do that. If you want to change it, just recompile.
(I don't share this view, but I think a substantial and growing fraction of folks does.)
Yes, I think you're right. It could be I haven't experienced the cutting edge of AI, but it a) doesn't seem there yet, and b) goes off on tangents assuming outcomes of decisions and needing to rewrite things a lot. So I quite like reading the output.
Mhh I've tried one-shotting double buffered IO a few times and it just can't do it. Maybe it's a prompting issue, maybe LLM's have a hard time with thinking about parallel processes.
I'll create a simple "framework" of what I know works. After that's there the LLM is fantastic.
LLMs benefit from abstractions for the same reasons that humans do. More information in the same amount of text. Fewer working parts to juggle so fewer ways to make mistakes.
Why would you care about architecture? Ability to implement the current feature, ability to implement future features, maintainability, and (at least sometimes) performance.
But why would you care when an AI can just rewrite it? Yes, but can it rewrite it to a good architecture? Or just to a different one?
Does a good architecture make code easier for an AI to maintain? I don't know, but I think it's at least not proven that it doesn't.
It’s important for separation of concerns, which is important for maintenance and future iteration on features and bug fixes. If you don’t have separation of concerns, every change to anything is essentially a from scratch rewrite of the whole thing. That’s also incredibly inefficient in token usage.
>> Europe faces no Islamic takeover, no mass radicalisation of Muslims and no erasure of its culture.
Obviously is does. Muslims have such a higher birth rate they they will be a majority soon. How is that not take-over?
>> Half of the 12 council wards in Blackburn, in northern England, are over 60% Muslim; two are over 80%. In such areas women can feel pressure to let sharia councils govern their family lives.
Wait didn't this article said there is no take-over a paragraph or two before?
>> And the populist right often whips up fear by claiming that all Muslims pose a threat and accusing the state of a “woke cover-up” and “two-tier treatment”.
Well if Muslims can do things in the name of religion why are white people and Christians prosecuted for doing the same?
>> That is why Europe’s mainstream politicians need to offer an alternative.
No thanks, we have seen it doesn't work. Mainstream politicians by definition cannot give an alternative.
People are tribal.
Muslims vote for Muslims.
Lee Kuan Yew showed that in a multiracial, multiethnic country you cannot even have a jury of your peers since people are so tribal.
It will be funny watching feminists trying to square a circle by still somehow defending Muslims, who want nothing more than getting rid of women rights.
If you're interested there are books on Oikophobia (there is one called Western Self-Contempt).
It's a theory that societies generate a luxury class which loathes itself and attacks it's own history and culture.
This usually happens prior to a collapse in the example societies...
and I love how it puts a historical context on the phenomenon because part of the current disease is a rejection of history.
A general problem I see in circles I have been in lately has been a general distrust of authority, like I am in a Tarot group and people (especially the hierophants!) there tend to have trouble with cards like The Emperor, The Hierophant, Kings and Queens, etc. [1] Of course it's complicated, like the best spokespeople for guru yoga are people like
[1] ... whereas I very much identify with the male-leaning figures in myself and see the female-leaning figures in the mature women around me such as my wife and other witches
That sounds like a much weaker claim than the original one. "These values directly lead to civilization collapse" is a lot different from "these values roughly resemble some of the ones in societies that have collapsed when trying to view them relative to the society itself"; now your claim is predicated on a subjective analogy from modern societies to past ones, and at that point it seems like the result is already basically predetermined based on how much you agree with the values or not.
Yeah it's kind of hard to understand how someone can argue this without giving any examples. What would be an example of a civilization that's been destroyed by "modern liberal society and feminism"? "Modern" implies relatively recent, but I can't think of any civilizations that have collapsed recently. There are certainly people claiming that a collapse is imminent, but that's not a new thing either, and even if I were going to accept the premise that it will happen soon I still wouldn't agree with those as the most likely causes (and there isn't any objective way to know right now given that it hasn't happened yet).
I think there is a crisis coming. It is not likely to be terminal, in and of itself, the immediate problem is that all the thing that leftist like such as public schools, higher ed, and the welfare state are going to become a lot harder to maintain thanks to demographic issues.
"Feminism" is not one thing, I mean, women are 50% of the population and they have very different beliefs, experiences, interests, etc. Often "feminism" is an expression of "individualism" and many of the major social changes have been driven by capital and the empire: I mean, a woman who stays home is not paying taxes on the fruits of her labor, she is not driving up stock market prices and making billionaires richer. I think there's not a lot of understanding that other career paths are possible. One of my friends had a child at age 19, spent some time living in a tent, worked in food service, but then got a masters in teaching and now works as an educator and union steward. And her daughter was off on her own at an age where some other women are stuggling with IVF and miscarriages. I know another teen mom who got an accounting degree, went down to New Jersey and became an experienced corporate accountant, and now she does the books for a well-regarded regional bank.
I believe in 50 years there is going to be more talk about duty and responsibility (which can be feminine, masculine or neither) and less about individual rights. Either our culture changes or there will be a rupture in which people will turn their backs on everything our culture stood for.
I know you weren't the one who posted the original comment that spawned this thread, but trying to pivot the discussion into "I think there is a crisis coming" after people pushed back against a wild claim that the same type of thing you're discussing being an objective cause of civilization collapse does not give the impression of good faith, so it does not seem obvious to me that it's worthwhile to try to engage with the points you're making
I think the default mode is lack of population and getting outcompeted by pro-natal civilisations, like amish etc. You need to provide a reputable source for why is that not the case.
I must be either misreading your point or not recognizing intentional irony. I would expect the Amish to average a lot of kids per family, but I'm not aware of any instance of a civilization disappearing due to being outcompeted by them.
The population maths works out exponentially it will likely take a 150 yrs to reach 300M~, the only moat liberal culture has is mimetic and we have seen that being trampled in realtime with post-truth era I am not optimistic about that.
Well I need to be shown why the default darwinian assumption which has held for millions of years won't eventually win again rather than your historical aberration.
People should always vote with their money. Give it to companies in sync with their views and withhold it from those out of sync. There is a grey middle ground where the decision is harder.
At this point I'm 90% convinced that any kind of a healthcare system will work as long as the politicans and everyone involved is not corrupt.
Alas...
The real question is then: since corruption seems to be everywhere, which system is the most resistant to it in terms of the price + quality for the end user.
And the real real question is: what can be done so that every country has a political class that has the same strict rules of law for corruption etc... as Singapore does?
The reason nobody is buying them is that if everyone can generate them on their own, exactly as you require as per your project specs, why would you buy it online?
You know much better what kind of a model to generate and you pay 3$ for many variations.
- Roissy
reply