If you don't use it you lose it, and a lot of people are losing it..

Totally unrelated pet peeve of mine, I hate when people write this: "MTBF vs MTTR (mean-time-between-failure vs. mean-time-to-recovery)".

You first use the full words and then introduce the acronym that you're going to use in the rest of the text: "Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) vs. Mean Time to Recovery (MTTR)".

With the latter, readers understand the term immediately, even if they don’t know the acronym. And they don't have to read these weird letters before getting the explanation.

Mitchellh is on to something. Some of the AI products I've seen seem like psychosis hallucinatory fever dreams, using terms and concepts that have no meaning. Funding? $50,000,000 pre-seed.

Is he talking about github?

I saw this first hand at a company, and I think this is what happens when you combine FOMO with an utter lack of industry best practices. No one knows where they are going, but are convinced they are not getting there fast enough.

What's more, the only people they talk to about it are others at the same company. There is no external touchstone. There are power dynamics from hierarchy. No new ideas other than what is generated within the company. In other circumstances, this is a textbook environment for radicalization.

I would encourage all leadership to take a deep breath. You have time to think slow.

Saying the _quiet_ part out loud.

The hype or psychosis is mainly by mediocre/non expert/middle manager/you name it, especially when a person who never wrote a single line of code suddenly is making a wall of text, and it actually works!? Oh my!!

But in reality, anyone who knows their field and are going after certain specific issue, they will find soon how AI is nothing but an assistant, sure it can help and automate some stuff, but that’s it, you need to keep it leashed and laser focused on that specific issue. I personally tried all high end ones, and I found a common theme, they are designed to find a solution or an answer no matter what, even if that solution is a workaround built on top of workarounds, it’s like welding all sort of connections between A and B resulting in a fractal structure rather than just finding a straight path, if you keep it going and flowing on its own, the results are convoluted and way over complicated, and not the good complexity, the bad kind.

> "no no, it has full test coverage"

There’s this delusion that if we somehow write enough tests that we’ll expunge every defect from software. It’s like everyone forgets that the halting problem exists.

Welcome to the club, Mitchell! Pizza's to the right.

In all seriousness...well, yeah. AI is a monkey's paw, and that's how monkey paws work. So many movies and books warned us!