It is significantly easier to micro-manage an AI than a suite of junior developers. The AI doesn't replace a principal engineer, it's replacing junior and weaker senior developers who need stories broken down extremely concisely to be able to get anything done. The time it takes to break down a story such that a junior through weak senior developers can pick it up and execute it well would have the AI already done with testing built around it.
Juniors learn. Some juniors are potential good seniors. Over time they will internalise good architecture and be able to make good judgments on their own.
Micromanaging LLMs is like having Dory from Finding Nemo as your colleague. You find ways to communicate, but there is no learning going on.
People think money is enough because they look at their lives and think 'how could I afford kids? Clearly I need money to do that.' and they don't think 'if I had extra money, would I spend it on someone else or on myself?' and the majority of people choose spending it on themselves instead of that potential child someone else.
Those people often don't even consider the time cost either. Which makes sense, if reason A is sufficient to say 'no' then why continue dwelling on other reasons? But even if there was more money and they were willing to not spend it on themselves, they now need to accept giving up roughly 90% of their non sleep/work time to someone else as well. That's not giving away something new you didn't have, that's giving up something you've been using and are accustomed to having.
Most of the people in the pro-natalism space have moved over to the idea that you're not going to be able to convince folks to have a first kid. Instead, you might be able to convince folks to have a third kid. That seems to be where the space is moving towards.
If in the old world, the very important process that used up a lot of time and benefited greatly from no distractions was the actual writing of code then interruptions for various ceremonies with limited value other than generating progress reports for some higher ups would feel like a waste of time.
That same person in the 'new' world where writing code is very fast but understanding the business and technical requirements that need to be accomplished is the difficult part would then prioritize those ceremonies more and be ok with distractions while their AI agents are writing the code for them.
It's not hypocritical to change your opinion when the facts of the situation have changed.
Well it is hypocritical. Hypocrisy is an action or statement that is contrary to a stated value or principle. Just because your values or principles changed doesn’t make you a suddenly no longer a hypocrite, it just admits that your former opinions are no longer tenable.
I’ve noticed this push to try to clothe hypocrisy in made up virtues like intellectual curiosity and mental plasticity a lot lately. All I can think is that it’s some kind of ego satisfaction play people make when their place in the world is threatened.
How to do it? Focus on writing specs for code / identifying needs.
I expect there are a lot of hypocrites in the mix, scared for their job. But this isn't a fundamentally hypocritical position - agents are changing the game for how software gets produced and the things that were important as recently as a year ago might reasonably be said to be irrelevant now. Ironically, we might yet see a great software engineer who has never written a program in their entire life. The odds are slim but it is possible now.
This is shifting the principle/value discussion up to a level where it's meaningless. Let's use a different example.
Old value: Returning value to shareholders.
How to do it? Treat your employees like family and don't be evil.
New value: Returning value to shareholders.
How to do it? Treat your employees like human resources and get away with what you can get away with.
Is this hypocritical? Most people would say yes, but in your framing it's not because we've backed up to the least specific articulation of an underlying principle. It's a species of the motte and bailey fallacy.
Agents may be changing the game for how software gets produced, but all it's really done is switch software developers from being managed to being managers. And software developers trying to square their historic value/principle that management tasks are useless, easy, and ceremonial (to borrow GP's word) tasks that should take a back seat to ~flow state coding~ with their new view that management is an integral, difficult, and requisite part of writing code reeks of hypocrisy.
> Is this hypocritical? Most people would say yes, but in your framing it's not because we've backed up to the least specific articulation of an underlying principle. It's a species of the motte and bailey fallacy.
I'm happy to defend that one too, for the reasons you outline. It is completely normal behaviour from a company, everyone understands it [0] and most managers I've worked with would be happy to talk about it openly. It isn't hypocritical. It'd be hypocritical to pretend that there was some sort of long-term commitment in an employment relation, but that isn't implied in your example.
Changing your behaviour when the situation changes isn't hypocrisy. That is just being aware of the conditions around you. Hypocrisy is pretending your behaviour is principles based, then clearly not following the principles. To show hypocrisy, you have to do two things (1) show people claimed to be following a principles and (2) show that they are not following it. In your scenario, you haven't identified a principle that people are being inconsistent with.
I note you threw in a "don't be evil", so maybe you're thinking of Google. Google is hypocritical, because it claimed to be acting on principles ("don't be evil") and then didn't follow them when it became inconvenient. But if it'd just been honest up front that it was a normal business and would act responsibly to maximise profit it could have undertaken exactly the same actions and not been hypocritical. It was the professing of principle in advance that made the hypocrisy, not the action. Claiming to "not be evil" is unusual for companies, because while they are immoral they usually only lie when it is detectable that it is to their benefit and they're usually just cynical, not hypocritical.
[0] "should" understand it, I suppose. One born every minute.
Sorry, did people not identify needs when developing "high value software" before? That doesn't seem true to me at all. I took a "Needs Assessment" course in my class of '09 undergrad...
I've noticed on hackernews in the past year, a certain type of comment. A deep suspicion to first call out a surface behavior, then psychoanalyze strangers with whatever the flavor of the month "deep observation" is.
You can't be a dick on this platform without fancy prose I guess.
Abduhl, the nature of the job has changed; before it was coding, now it is managing the AI coding. What was and remains valuable is delivering value. This principle has not changed.
If your job was only coding then you are the most replaceable of the bunch. Traditional software engineering is a broader domain that, as rightly pointed out, will require you to actually *sit and talk* with the worst communicators you'll meet in your life.
Looking at a slice of most folks' workday and calling it their whole job is in my opinion, incorrect.
Bottom line is the people described as hypocritical in the comment have no principles, but rather feign passion in anything they think other people consider valuable. When devs thought coding skill was valuable, that's what they claimed to be passionate about, when the game changed and communication became key, they suddenly changed their passion. Either the timing is a coincidence, or they are hypocrites.
I don't think switching one's passion on a dime is a valid escape hatch from hypocrisy.
But also, 'Not necessary' doesn't mean 'not worth subsidizing'.
If you think the government finds value in having a connected population with easy access to information then there's value in subsidizing that. Assume the government valued it at $10 a month per person due to increased economic activity made possible from the information flowing, if the market price for it was $60 a month then you have expanded access to anyone who valued it at at least $50 a month.
You can make the same argument for air travel by the way. Why does the government value consumers flying around the country? Why would the government want to encourage people to fly from Charlotte to Florida to go to disney instead of drive to Pidgeon Forge and go to Dollywood? Or fly to NY 3x a year to see grandma for a weekend instead of drive to NY and see grandma for a whole week 1x a year?
Nearly all 'goods' are going to travel more efficiently by rail and truck. And I say nearly all to cover the outliers like maybe an organ flying across country for transplant.
So if it's not the distribution method of choice for goods, then leisure? It's probably a global positive if people fly less. People will end up going to more local vacation destinations instead of aggregating all of those resources into a few popular locations that end up being massively overcrowded. This in turn reduces carbon impact because driving 3 hours is significantly less impactful than flying for 3 hours.
If you are just talking about all of the labor that has built up to support this inefficient and wasteful enterprise, that's probably for the best to reallocate that labor elsewhere. It will happen eventually, unless you think cheap oil is a permamenent feature, so why not happen sooner than later?
People in power want the information to identify a narrower set of people who may have been pregnant and then did not have a child and so may have had an abortion.
And facebook doesn't care about people's rights when those people in power are able to block Facebook from acquiring some new startup they want to buy, so facebook is willing to share the information.
Are we assuming the lack of a recorded period is the criteria? If yes, what if you just forgot to add it that month, or have hormonal issues, or abnormal BMI?
Texas & West Virginia is one of those states that prosecute women for having miscarriages. Texas offers a $10k bounty for turning in any woman who leaves the state and somehow returns without that pregnancy.
> Nationally, about 20% of pregnancies end in a loss, which includes miscarriage or spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth or fetal death, according to federal data. Only a small number are investigated as crimes. But advocates say the growing number of laws in some states place people’s actions following pregnancy loss under greater scrutiny from law enforcement.
> Women in South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, Arkansas, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and several other states have faced criminal charges after a miscarriage or stillbirth for failing to seek immediate medical treatment, not pursuing prenatal care or disposing of the fetal remains in a way that law enforcement or prosecutors considered improper.
Many states prosecute black women who miscarry and one of their claims is that the woman took some (illegal - allegedly) drug that caused the miscarriage.
> In the year after the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled the constitutional right to abortion in June 2022, more than 200 pregnant women faced criminal charges for conduct associated with their pregnancy, pregnancy loss or birth, according to a new report.
When Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health first overturned long-standing precedent protecting a woman's fundamental right to abortion, pro-choice leaders issued warnings about the possibility of prosecuting women for abortions. These concerns were dismissed as hysterical or as political theatrics because, in the past, women were rarely prosecuted for their own abortions. This note analyzes the history of illegal abortion before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade to demonstrate that women were targeted, used as leverage against abortion providers, and sometimes arrested for their roles in the procedure."
https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/lj/vol69/iss4/11/
Lots of reasons why you would miss a period that aren't pregnancy related. But that's not the point. Missing a period opens you up to further scrutiny and investigation by the state. Now they will start seeing if you've made out of town trips or perhaps subpoena your chat log to see what you've said to friends and family. It's not enough to prosecute, it is enough to start an investigation.
Is there any precedent of subpoena-ing chat logs, or locale information, based on (illegally obtained information of) a missed period; or is this Handmaid's-Tale-fantasy territory?
Does what actually happen? Prosecutions for abortions? Yes. Warrants related to people getting an abortion? Yes. A period tracker being used as the jump off point for those prosecutions/investigations? Hard to say, maybe? If the data is being sold it isn't hard to imagine that prosecutors and busybodies aren't currently mining that data.
mainly because I have no idea whether it's realistic to imagine what prosecutors do. I can also easily imagine it to be illegal and wildly unrealistic behaviour for a prosecutor, in my ignorance.
> Warrants related to people getting an abortion?
The question here isn't whether abortion is illegal in some states, but about period tracking data could be used as evidence, or justify an investigation - especially data that is seemingly illegally obtained. AFAIK, illegally obtained evidence is normally not valid grounds for investigation, and might actually weaken the case based on "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine.
In this case, though not covered by HIPAA, it's also not clear there was legal consent to sell this information given it was against their privacy policy.
The latter. Somebody in a town of dumbfucknowhere, OH wakes up, downloads this data from a commercial company obtained legally or not and then charges an actual person with getting an abortion. It is technically possible, I would factor it in my threat model if it was my problem, but does it actually happen?
I see a potential motive for the person doing this -- either promotion, quota hitting, number bullshitting or religious zeal. They can probably get something out it?
>People in power want the information to identify a narrower set of people who may have been pregnant and then did not have a child and so may have had an abortion.
And what will people in power do with this information?
Are you not American? We have literal abortion bounty programs[1] in some states. There is definitely a desire to find women who have had abortions and punish them for it.
Presumably try to get those women arrested, or at least investigate them.
It's actually quite difficult to investigate an abortion, though. Abortion isn't "real", in the sense that there's no obvious difference between a natural abortion (read: miscarriage) and a purposeful one.
The thing that means abortion abortion colloquially is the purposeful-ness of it. If you knowingly terminate a pregnancy, that's an abortion. If your body terminates its own pregnancy, for a variety of reasons because the human body is very complicated, that's not an abortion.
Generally trusting people with that nuance is, I think, asking for trouble.
Do you really have to ask that question? They've criminalized health care. There's motive, history and current events to explain what they'll do with this information.
Work uses Webex. I had work webex installed on my phone. My password changed on my account in the office, if i try to open Webex on my phone I would be prompted to re-authenticate which I would never do because it required 2FA and the token generator is on my laptop which I generally wouldn't have with me when using my phone.
However, despite not being able to open the app as my account, I was still getting full messages in the push notification for anyone who had messaged me recently while the app was functioning. Anyone new would pop up as 'Message From X'.
> The visual risk of walking out without paying is much greater than the risk that anyone actually investigates AND tries to track him down for it.
So scan everything, then put it in the cart and walk off without putting in the credit card. Again, both are stealing but paying some fake, reduced rate is leaving your calling card at the scene of a crime.
Calling card doesn’t actually mean anything without enforcement. My city police didn’t have time to investigate when someone kicked in my back door and fled once the alarm sounded. I really doubt they give a crap about looking me up and coming to cite me for misdemeanor charges.
Anything that risks an employee might confront you in the store is a greater risk IMO. And, usually they light on the register is green (or a similar indicator) so they do know right then if you don’t pay.
Police may not care about stealing fifty dollars worth of steaks one time by entering a PLU of 4011 and declaring them to be bananas. It's hard to prove, and even if everyone takes the time to prove it: Then what? A misdemeanor?
But at some point, they do start to care.
Stealing fifty dollars worth of steaks on 20 different occasions (every couple of weeks, say), with video and transaction evidence of the acts happening over and over again? That's a lot easier to prove, and in many states adds up to a nice juicy felony.
There will be video either way though. They'll either have security footage of you walking out the door without paying or they'll have security footage of you "paying". The only important variables here (AFAICT) are the likelihood of getting noticed coupled with the frequency of the act.
When a thief takes a steak from the cooler and walks out the door, they don't know who that person is. And while they may have video of parts of this, they don't necessarily see enough to prosecute. (Acting like you're stealing a steak but not actually doing it isn't a crime. Shoplifting can be hard to prove; part of that proof means demonstrating that they didn't change their mind and just drop off the steak somewhere else in the store.)
When a thief takes a steak from the cooler and walks it up to self-checkout and pays for it as if it is a bunch of bananas with their credit card, they have identified that person. They have them on video at the self-checkout committing this crime.
It actually doesn't matter much if they leave the store with their bounty or not in this second case. The crime is already done by converting the steak into bananas.
In principle I agree with you but in practice I feel like this really misses the reality of the situation. If it was an isolated incident at an isolated store in the mid 90s I think you'd be right. But presumably the thief makes a habit of this (otherwise why worry), it's likely a major chain with centrally coordinated loss prevention, the thief has presumably made a legitimate purchase from this chain at some point in the past and will again at some point in the future, and facial recognition is a thing.
In that scenario it seems to me that the best the thief can do is to "accidentally" ring up a steak as bananas occasionally and hope that if someone ever takes note that the past events will remain undetected.
That said, I'm pretty sure all of the self checkouts I've interacted with over the past several years would automatically flag such a "mistake". There are some things they're still bad at and they generate plenty of false positives but they seem to be reasonably good at identifying obvious "errors".
The best a thief can do is just not ring up the steak at all and if confronted just act like it’s an honest mistake.
Anyone just buying bananas and steaks is going to look suspicious fast. So rotating the banana for other things is key. Having a mixed bag of purchases where the steaks are always just accidentally unscanned or misscanned.
The facial recognition thing isn’t really in the picture for this minor type of crime. Law enforcement doesn’t have easy access to it as Hollywood would lead you to believe. Its use is reserved for higher profile crimes. You’d have to really be running a steak stealing criminal syndicate for this to happen. Before that, retailers would have already started forcing different procedures for the steaks. Like locking them up or pay at the butcher stand.
One thing facial recognition can do, if used properly by the retailer, is flag you and alert the store to put extra eyes on you every time you enter the store. There’s an increased chance they’ll confront you in the act or otherwise scare you off of it.
I mean, eventually the people working there would take notice. "Oh, look. Banana Man is doing it again." :)
That said: I've never, ever weighed meat at self checkout. In fact, I've never had a cashier any weigh meat, either.
I've bought plenty of steaks in regular grocery stores, but each of those steaks (even the ones that they wrapped in butcher paper just for me after I selected them from the glass case at the back of the store) had the weight coded into the UPC that was printed at the time it was wrapped up (and weighed by the meat cutter).
There has no further weighing required for the register to know the price, so weighing a steak at the checkout is pretty bizarro-world behavior to begin with -- at least in my experience.
That's why you peel off the UPC and then ring it up as however many cucumbers would approximately correspond to its weight. Fooling the overhead camera and associated ML algorithm is left as an exercise for the reader.
There's already an scale that prints UPCs in the produce department for customers to use. I'll just put the package of steak on there, punch in 4011, and scan out my "bananas" at the self-checkout. ;)
(But they'll still know who I am. Walking out is cleaner, and has fewer steps.)
The man in the sky can see what is being scanned in real time, it’s on his video display just like the cash register except overlayed on the video of you. If they see a ribeye in your hand and it says bananas on the screen, good chance they’re going to stop you before you exit (assuming they can mobilize to do so).
Honestly if you’re a thief this is just a dumb idea. Probably works for the original commenter a few times fine. But it’s way too obviously and intentionally theft. You need to come up with something you can claim was an honest mistake.
Find another item that sounds similar but is cheaper and use that upc. If you’re keying in the upc, on a scale or something, then find one that’s cheaper but off my 1 digit or something where you can say it was a typo and you didn’t notice. Those kinds of things are more defensible. None of us have been trained to be a cashier so honest mistakes are a strong defense to any claim of misconduct.
Police know which side their bread is buttered on. Target is famous for being to get local cops to do exactly what they need post-facto (now prosecutor is another story).
I.E. just because police don’t “waste” time investigating a crime with $1000 of damage to your personal property does not mean they won’t dedicate the time to pursue $200 in losses for the local mega mart.
What Target is famous for is doing their own investigations rather than expecting the police to do the grunt work. They operate such a sophisticated forensics lab that they actually do contract work for LE agencies across the country.
If you funded your own private investigation which unambiguously identified the culprit and demonstrated damages sufficient for a felony I imagine the local police would readily act on your behalf as well.
Breaking and entering into a home is more serious of a crime than $1000 of property damage. But regardless of that, it’s a point just to highlight how little policing resources exists and tells a broader story. At least in my city, cops don’t do anything for minor crimes. On my local Reddit, I see people mentioning that you have to mention that you have a gun in your hand if you ever want them to actually show up. I think our police force has half the personnel they’re supposed to have given our city size. I think this is becoming more common in the US.
There’s plenty of documented cases where local police are the basically henchmen for large corporations, but I’ve seen no evidence of this and believe it’s kind of a fear mongering meme to think they have enough power over them to dictate them to do roundups after the fact. They may however give all the evidence they collect on you to the police with a bow on it and the cops may decide to take it seriously. Where I am, I do not see this happening. The police will have expected the retailer to have protected their inventory. Off duty police officers make a lot of money working private security and they don’t want to disturb that dynamic.
It is significantly easier to micro-manage an AI than a suite of junior developers. The AI doesn't replace a principal engineer, it's replacing junior and weaker senior developers who need stories broken down extremely concisely to be able to get anything done. The time it takes to break down a story such that a junior through weak senior developers can pick it up and execute it well would have the AI already done with testing built around it.
reply