You're probably right about the terminology being around for a while, but I think most people just called them smileys (i.e. ;) would be called a "winking smiley"). I remember seeing the term used maybe in the early- or mid-90s either on a BBS or Usenet and thinking "Ah, that's what they're called" and as a nerd being annoyed that nobody used that term colloquially.
Yup. AI can't automate long-term responsibility and ownership of a product. It can produce output quicker but somebody still has to be responsible to the customer using said product. The hard limit is still the willingness of the human producing the code to back what's been output.
I really don't know why this idea still persists that going through App Store review is this awful thing that takes forever and eats up all of your time. It really doesn't nowadays. I've shipped several apps in the last few years and the longest one of my apps has been in review has been maybe 3 days, and the average is between 1-2 days. That's usually for new apps. For updates, it's usually half a day to 1.5 days to get it reviewed.
It takes barely any time to manage the review process. I have had apps and updates rejected but it was easy enough to make some changes and re-submit.
In the clip, I thought he was playing a prank by reading the script of NotebookLM as the third voice (after the woman). Was that really NotebookLM? I've only heard the first two voices and the first voice didn't sound like him to me, but the last one definitely sounded like him.
Yeah it’s after the woman enters. That is usually how it happens, suddenly his voice comes in, even though it’s a duo suddenly it’s his voice for some time. And really with all his mannerisms. I guess there is just a lot of his material out there.
I think before Friendster, Myspace, then Facebook, there was a period where there were discussion forums for local communities. I think it was useful for meeting people. I remember friends in the late '90s used them frequently for chatting and some made new friends in real life that way. It was a short period, though, as more established companies came along that had a wider reach.
I agree. It's not that the web was high-trust. It was more that if you landed on a niche web page, you knew whoever put it together probably had at least a little expertise (and care) since it wouldn't be worth writing about something that very few people would find and read anyway. Now that it's super cheap to produce niche content, even if very few people find a page, it's "worth it" to produce said garbage as it gives you some easy SEO for very little time investment.
The motivation for content online has changed over the last 20 years from people wanting to share things they're interested in to one where the primary goal is to collect eyeballs to make a profit in some way.
I agree that framing and scoping tasks is becoming a real joy. The great thing about this strategy is there's a point at which you can scope something small enough that it's hard for the AI to get it wrong and it's easy enough for you as a human to comprehend what it's done and verify that it's correct.
I'm starting to think of projects now as a tree structure where the overall architecture of the system is the main trunk and from there you have the sub-modules, and eventually you get to implementations of functions and classes. The goal of the human in working with the coding agent is to have full editorial control of the main trunk and main sub-modules and delegate as much of the smaller branches as possible.
Sometimes you're still working out the higher-level architecture, too, and you can use the agent to prototype the smaller bits and pieces which will inform the decisions you make about how the higher-level stuff should operate.
[Edit: I may have been replying to another comment in my head as now I re-read it and I'm not sure I've said the same thing as you have. Oh well.]
I agree. This is how I see it too. It's more like a shortcut to an end result that's very similar (or much better) than I would've reached through typing it myself.
The other day I did realise that I'm using my experience to steer it away from bad decisions a lot more than I noticed. It feels like it does all the real work, but I have to remember it's my/our (decades of) experience writing code playing a part also.
I'm genuinely confused when people come in at this point and say that it's impossible to do this and produce good output and end results.
I agree the language itself has gotten more complex, but for day-to-day productivity in terms of actually using it to write code, I don't think it makes a difference.
I've found writing Swift code very pleasant, but I've been doing it for ten years, so that helps I suppose. The biggest productivity impact for day-to-day use for me in the last few years has been the new concurrency model.
I don't think it necessarily scales that way. Larger organizations need more communication channels and coordination. If anything, assuming AI does give you 10x ability, there's probably a sweet spot where you have just enough developers that churn out code at a good pace but not too many that it gets too chaotic.
If you compare one developer to 10, for instance, one developer doesn't have to deal with communicating with 9 other people to make sure they're working on things that align with the work everyone else is doing. There is no consensus that has to be reached. No meetings, no messages that have to be relayed, no delays because someone wasn't around to get approval. That one developer just makes a decision and does it.
There are lots of big companies out there and in the past, small startups have been able to create successful products that never would have been created at the big company even though the big company hired way more developers.
reply