aaaaaaand this is why i prefer anthropic. There is just too much sneaky/misleading/deceptive things with chatGPT. Even if benchmarks show codex to be slightly better, the developer experience with claude code is much better.

glue work is real work and a lot of projects get stalled or blocked because there was no glue; especially in SOA where you have different teams with differing roadmaps integrating with each other. It's not just about communication/socialization, but also how code interacts and how the contract is defined.

I wish youtube would also take action. So much of my recommendations for music is just AI slop now. I'd be OK if they flagged videos as AI and let me block them. At first I was open to the idea of AI synthwave as a thing but now it's just gotten out of hand and every day i am flagging new channels to not be recommended.

using tailwind docs is awful. I'd MUCH rather use an LLM than try to grok their documentation. That it was their only way to promote commercial offerings is not my problem, there are many other ways to approach this than encouraging a worse experience for devs.

What about the docs do you find awful? I’ve always found them great: a short explanation and a minimal working example.

What other ways can you approach it?

while AI does lower the barrier to who can do software development it does not nullify their need only moves them into more complicated domains. Yes, if you're job as a SWE was building landing pages, you're pretty much cooked. But if you're working in complicated domains, or domains that require a level of technical awareness or social skills to create success, AI is just an amplifier and makes the boring/frustrating parts easier.

I am using claude to build a pretty complicated project. Technically, a lot of what i am prompting are things that other people could prompt. But I also do find myself leveraging a lot of knowledge in shaping what the code should do and how it should do it, and also needing to step in when claude reaches limits of it's training. I am confident that the number of people who could build what I am building is pretty small.

So I think the author is creating a narrative that is unfounded. There will always be software engineers. There will always be engineering challenges that it takes a human to resolve. Yes, always; no matter how "smart" the AI gets. For sure, AI will be taking some development jobs. But calling for a collapse is simply hyperbole, shortsighted and naive.

hey this is pretty cool! very interesting concept to transpile to rbs.

in most of my coding career (rails) i have not needed types. But when i was working on a large codebase with many teams, the lack of types was a recurring issue. now i work in a SOA and face different coupling challenges.

But i much prefer this syntax to what RBS required.

> We're developing a responsible access framework that makes models available to researchers for scholarly purposes while preventing misuse.

oh COME ON... "AI safety" is getting out of hand.

the AI hallucinated and somehow it's rails fault?

GID's are great - i think the issue is with how they leveraged rubyLLM for something they should inherently not be using LLMs for.

> Remember that GIDs were made for facilitating ActiveJob serialization - they are a system-level facility, not a product-level facility.

I think this is somewhat obvious given the signature like gid://awesome-app/Post/32; there is no scoping to the user or account so it should be treated like a global lookup. If you need scoping to a user/account you can build that.

Honestly I think this is a matter of the author using poor design decisions and over leveraging LLMs. But this is not the fault of Rails, it is working as expected.

Be careful with LLMs!

They just described servant leadership and called it something else. It's not about parenting or treating people like children.