If a person is going to be blamed, it should be the one that mandated use of the AI systems… Because that’s exactly what Amazon was doing.
Talk about an extra slap in the fuckin face… getting blamed for something your replacement did. Cool.
That’s in the SOP for management.
True. In this case, these poor saps being tricked into “training” these AI to eventually render their jobs obsolete.
Yes. “obsolete” in that Amazon doesn’t give a shit about reliability anymore, so an AI reliability engineer is fine, now. Haha.
Would said employees have voluntarily used the agent if Amazon didn’t demand it? If no, this isn’t on them. They shouldn’t be responsible for forced use of unvetted tools.
It blows my mind that people are going forward with this AI nonsense and that it has infected key infrastructure. I feel like im taking crazy pills here. I could kind of understand if it actually worked. Like if it genuinely worked as well as they said? I could totally understand it. I would still question it, but it would make more sense.
A computer (AI) can never be held accountable. Therefore, a computer (AI) must never make any human decision.
described the outages as “small but entirely foreseeable.”
LMAO
AI is working great!
It’s working great to convince moronic executives to leave Windows when it fucks up majorly due to AI coding, which is a win for everyone.
I mean, I’ll applaud any push toward Linux.
This is a terrible idea for Amazon, the cloud services company.
But for Amazon, the AI company? This is them illustrating the new grift that almost any company can do: use AI to keep a plausible mirage of your company going while reducing opex, and sacrifice humans when necessary to dodge accountability.
But his job wasn’t even to supervise the chatbot adequately (single-handedly fact-checking 10 lists of 15 items is a long, labor-intensive process). Rather, it was to take the blame for the factual inaccuracies in those lists. He was, in the phrasing of Dan Davies, “an accountability sink” (or as Madeleine Clare Elish puts it, a “moral crumple zone”).
https://locusmag.com/feature/commentary-cory-doctorow-reverse-centaurs/
Yay! Extra mental load of having to ask the AI “correctly” and then keep up one’s skills to be able to review the AI’s work! Extra bonus for being blamed for letting anything slip past.
At least the junior that fucked up will learn something from the experience and can buy a round of beers (if the junior is paid well enough, otherwise the seniors have to buy the junior a beer while talking it out).
I’m reminded of a time I was in a bar in Georgia at a conference. It was in the hotel, and a high-ranking editor for the then-reputable Washington Post bought me a beer. He let me take a sip before launching into how much “immature shit [I] need to get out of [my] system” before being ready to be “Post material.”
Where is any industry going to be in a decade, when no one’s been mentored?
That’s actually the correct approach, they just got the wrong humans. It’s the executives that are FORCING developers to use AI as a metric that are responsible here, not the developers themselves.
AI can never fail, it can only be failed
Well, AI code should be reviewed prior merge into master, same as any code merged into master.
We have git for a reason.
So I would definitely say this was a human fault, either reviewer’s or the human’s who decided that no (or AI driven) review process is needed.
If I would manage devOps, I would demand that AI code has to be signed off by a human on commit taking responsibility with the intention that they review changes made by AI prior pushing
If I would manage devOps, I would demand that AI code has to be signed off by a human on commit taking responsibility with the intention that they review changes made by AI prior pushing
And you would get burned. Today’s AI does one thing really really well - create output that looks correct to humans.
You are correct that mandatory review is our best hope.
Unfortunately, the studies are showing we’re fucked anyway.
Because whether the AI output is right or wrong, it is highly likely to at least look correct, because creating correct looking output is where (what we call “AI”, today) AI shines.
@Petter1 @remington at our company every PR needs to be reviewed by at least one lead developer. And the PRs of the lead developers have to be reviewed by architects. And we encourage the other developers to perform reviews as well. Our company encourages the usage of Copilot. But none of our reviewers would pass code that they don’t understand.
🥰nice!
@Petter1 I’m a lead developer. And often I hear from my architect when I missed stuff in some PR that I just checked.
I worked in a lot of different software companies over the last 35 years. And this company has by far the highest standards. It’s sometimes really annoying when you maybe coded 8 hours for a use case, just to spend 10-12 additional hours just for the test cases and maybe some 1-2 additional hours because the QA or the PO found something that needs to be changed. But in the end we can be proud of what we coded.
