I see this a lot in what LLMs know and promote in terms of software architecture.
All seem biased to recent buzzwords and approaches. Discussions will include the same hand-waving of DDD, event-sourcing and hexagonal services, i.e. the current fashion. Nothing of worth apparently preceded them.
I fear that we are condemned to a future where there is no new novel progress, but just a regurgitation of those current fashion and biases.
This is effectively a product, not a feature (or bug). Ask the submitter how you can you determine if this meets functional and non-functional requirements, to start with?
My first reaction is how do they know? Are these all people sharing their chats (willingly) with OpenAI, or is opting out of “helping improve the model” for privacy a farce?
Does OpenAI's terms prevent them from looking at chats at all? I assumed that if you don't "help improve the model", it just means that they won't feed your chats in as training data, not that they won't look at your chats for other purposes.
This seems to assume that any endeavor in software is something entirely established from scratch. There are no patterns, experiences or reusable parts that can be relied on. A hack at it until it works methodology.
Accordingly, it seems to imply that we as developers can’t be accountable for anything but effort. It’s a sad condemnation of our industry, and at odds with any (normal) commercial undertaking that has limited resources that must be allocated among competing alternatives.
Any real manager knows the basics of calculating the best choice amongst competing alternatives by establishing projected cashflows and calculating the PV (present value) of each. But not for software - we’re too special.
(normal) - one that can sustain itself on a commercial basis, rather than just on injected capital or borrowed funds.
I think this talk speaks to an idea that is true for early stage and small businesses. That is software development is a strategic investment not a tactical one. Maybe I don't need a product database and an API just yet, I could use a spreadsheet. But I choose to do it because software can enable teams to capitalize on opportunities more effectively.
Of course, once software becomes mature there will be tactical decisions in the margins. But greenfield software is usually a strategic decision.
I am not sure this comment it is in any way related to the article it is commentating on. To name one example the comment complains about the absence of PV calculations while the article actually specifically describes this.
For the first time, I have not upgraded all my Apple devices to a new OS and now remain on 18. Let’s take something good and make it worse, seemingly just for the sake of it.
I think the future is that models will not be able to answer that well, because sites will move to protect their data/content.
Instead, the model will provide you with a list of (in chat) “apps” that can fulfill your request. SEO becomes AISO (AI Search Optimization). Sites can partly expose data to entice you to choose them.
I wonder if I have just seen the future. A movement away from mobile apps (and some aspects of websites), to apps in an AI model?
Can’t say I'm unhappy to see the authoritarian duopoly of the existing app stores challenged.
One question that comes to mind is how will multiple providers of similar products and services be recommended/discovered? Perhaps they wont be recommended, but just listed instead as currently done by search engines. Is AISO our future - AI Search Optimization?
All seem biased to recent buzzwords and approaches. Discussions will include the same hand-waving of DDD, event-sourcing and hexagonal services, i.e. the current fashion. Nothing of worth apparently preceded them.
I fear that we are condemned to a future where there is no new novel progress, but just a regurgitation of those current fashion and biases.
reply