> Commit count by month, for the entire history of the repo. I scan the output looking for shapes. A steady rhythm is healthy.
But what does it look like when the count drops by half in a single month?
Let's NOT jump to conclusions; it could mean many things. For example, a period with other priorities, different urgencies, other issues external to the project itself and beyond our control, vacations, illnesses, or anything else that could impact the commit history.
I think these considerations and the others expressed in this article can easily lead to hasty conclusions and erroneous deductions, too simplistic.
Coding flow, like business needs, cannot always be objectively and deterministically measured.
> The shed is where you take the blueprints you learned on the job and actually get to play with them.
> You try something in the shed on a weekend because you’re curious. You learn the tradeoffs, the rough edges, the things the documentation doesn’t tell you. Then months later, when the team at work is evaluating that same tool or approach, you’re not starting from zero.
These are two opposing concepts, but both True and complementary.
Working for clients (or companies) and home-based side projects are two sides of the same coin and complement each other. What must drive you, in both cases, is curiosity and the passion to do something useful.
My dream is to be able to turn a home-based project into something that generates income. My goal is to have the freedom to work on what I love and on a useful and profitable project of my own.
> Doing a day of manual labour, chatting shit, then going for the onsen and some BBQ and beers is far better than grinding away at some enterprise SaaS that will probably disappear in a few years.
I particularly agree with this statement.
I don't know why manual work has been so denigrated over the last century. We believed that office labor was more important and healthier than manual labor. I don't think so.
As a developer, sitting all day typing in a stuffy office, without natural light, without sun, without air, is certainly no healthier than being outdoors, connecting with nature and other people. We come from nature and are made to be active, outdoors, and in the sunlight.
Today, with AI, many white-collar jobs are being called into question, and perhaps we can go back to loving certain traditional jobs.
I don't think it's that deep: Obligatory manual labor destroys the body (and, often, the mind) and what time you have you spend exhausted. Being entirely sedentary remains a choice for us office workers—this is why people exercise and spend time outside.
Of course, I would like more flexibility in choosing how much I and where I do my sedentary labor, so I might devote time to, say, gardening. But it's easy to forget that humans have spent most of human history trying to escape subsistence farming.
I have worked subsistence farming for a small portion of my life, and I cannot tell you how hard it is, physically and psychologically. That was by choice, as part of essentially joining my wife's culture and family. If I were to do that for the remainder of my life it would destroy me.
Anyway, I'm going to go happily work from my desk 30 ft from my bedroom while drinking coffee likely farmed for about ~$0.30/hour while I make a few hundred times that.
> But it's easy to forget that humans have spent most of human history trying to escape subsistence farming.
Do you define human history as the last ~10k years or last ~100k-500k years?
But yes, certainly at least the last 3000 years for most humans have been spent farming to a large degree. But if we are even moderate in estimations of human origins, farming is very recent.
I think specifying "recorded history" would remove the confusion. Human history could refer to the history of anatomically modern humans, including before farming.
History is a bit of a confusing word that way; I suppose I can see it can be used in an informal sense to refer to any timeline outside of just historiography, which does tend to refer to a distinct study from archaeology and anthropology. Noted.
It truly is not a choice, as I cannot sustain my family / lifestyle with manual labor. Opting into working out for the sake of my health is not nearly the same.
>It truly is not a choice, as I cannot sustain my family / lifestyle
Success and failure are choices. Accepting this allows us to take responsibility for the worlds we've created. Ignoring this is self-destructive act of cognitive dissonance and we pay for it years later.
Tell that to crop failures of sustinance farmers. "Oh you just chose the weather to be bad/a fast soreading disease/a severe drought. Live with your choices".
The push to increase production and leave nothing on the table is insidious and will turn every work environment, be it manual labor, design, programming or excel factory into shit.
You'll end up burn out and hating the job (no matter the job) if the company you work for doesn't give a considerable weight to the wellbeing of employees (at the percieved cost of productivity and raw revenue).
I’d love to do manual labor as long as: I have a decent house, decent health insurance, can afford decent food/stuff, can afford taking sabbaticals, can afford getting sick and not losing my income, can afford decent education for kids, etc.
Unfortunately, many of us are chained to the modern way of life.
Don’t forget doing only enough manual labour not to get hurt, killed or develop a chronic condition.
You can make a lot of money doing many skilled manual jobs in my country. Trades are highly paid and there is not enough supply. Better money than software development.
They often wreck their backs, or develop other chronic conditions. The successful ones stop doing manual work by the time they are in their 40s and move to running their own businesses employing 20 year olds.
A friend of mine just lost a family member a few weeks ago. He slipped on a roof.
Forestry is well paid in NZ, the average forester is probably better paid than the average developer. Although the ceiling for software devs is much higher.
But Forestry also has the highest number of industrial accidents.
We have a strong health and safety regime and culture. Most primary industries are heavily automated. Yet it only takes a simple mistake to cause injury.
> I don't know why manual work has been so denigrated over the last century.
As a farmer, it is funny to see how people react to you based on the current profitability winds. When farming is a money maker, everyone acts envious and treats you like a king. When times are tough, they think you're a slack-jawed yokel.
I expect in that lies the answer to your question: We denigrate anything that isn't, as a rule, making a lot of money. Manual jobs generally haven't made much money in the last century, and humorously the exceptions, like professional athlete, get exempted from being considered manual work.
I don't fully agree this optimistic view. Unfortunately, for now, coding agents produce code that, if not further optimized upon "human" request, often generates more complexity than necessary.
It's true that this requires more computational effort for the agents themselves to debug or modify it, but it's also true that the computational cost is negligible compared to the benefit of having features working quickly.
In other words: agents quickly generate hyper-complex and unoptimized code. And the speed of delivery provides more immediate benefits than the costs resulting from bad code.
On the other hand, it's also true that the "careful eye" of an experienced developer can optimize and improve the output in a few simple iterations.
So overall (and unfortunately) the "bad code", if it immediately works, can wins against (or with) a good code.
For agents, any direct access to execution tools (code, shell, file system, browser, and external services, etc.) exponentially increases vulnerabilities and error surfaces, especially when multiple agents interact with each other.
This makes it even more crucial to have the most seamless ability possible to implement reverse and restore previous States.
The risk of the Agents actions becoming irreversible at the system level must be minimized.
I wonder how much all this can impact (and certainly will impact) the Real World, which will be increasingly robotized and automated: public services, finance, hospitals, schools, public administrations, military sectors (!), etc.
Now, can you see the doomsday, when you broaden your "system level" definition to span multi-tenant processes? Eg. corporations <-> government agencies <-> citizens, and LLMs are used by all sides, because otherwise the quantity would be unmanageable.
Perhaps the business of the future will be "cleaning up, eliminating" rather than "creating."
With AI, we have an exponential level of productivity. But what is being produced? 90%: garbage.
The problem is that what is being produced is essentially "garbage" generated by models trained on garbage. Quality knowledge is increasingly submerged and suffocated by spam and low-quality content.
The real challenge of the future will be filtering and cleaning up, on each level.
> "..but maybe it's a good thing that most of us don't allow this technology to reframe our thoughts."
No, you're not the only one experiencing this: I too had the same concerns as you: with every new thought, every new creation, I had to ask the AI's opinion, as if I were no longer able to judge, to decide, without consulting the AI (...just to be safe, you never know...).
The only way to regain your creative ability is to write down your thoughts yourself, read, reread, rewrite, correct, express your opinion...
depending how hard the "the brain is a muscle" saying applies, there is no way using LLMs/chatbot systems/AI is not going to deteriorate your brain immensely.
when i was younger, we didnt have cellphones. i had ~20-30 phone numbers memorized, at least. i also used to remember my credit card number. my brain has not deteriorated now that i have offloaded that to my phone.
point being: it depends on how you use it. if you offload critical thinking to ai, you will probably (slowly) atrophy your critical thinking muscles. if you offload some bullshit boilerplate or repetitive tasks or whatever, giving you more time overall to do the critical thinking part, you will be fine.
do you want a reference from a published journal or something? links to my last mri? how do you want me to answer this?
bring some empirical evidence that using ai rots the brain, and in the meantime, i will think about whether or not its worth trying to answer your request in earnest.
There is no way for you to know that you aren't slightly less sharp having offloaded the memorization of those phone numbers. Who is the judge? It's a nonsensical question from a scientific perspective because it's impossible to prove either way.
We could speculate that simple acts like memorizing phone numbers probably do make the average person slightly sharper, in a similar way to trivial brain games helping to stave off alzheimer's.
In I,Robot, Will Smith prefers to drive himself because he doesn't trust AI. But we are moving towards self driving as it would be more safer. Would you trust a calculation more if it was done by hand using log tables? Having vehicles allowed us to create sports like dirt bike riding or monster truck racing. Yes something is lost but something is also gained. We move up the layer of abstraction.
That is not the same situation. Writing is a thing we do to communicate with other people, and to engage our own thinking. It's creative, it's exploratory, and it's a human-to-human practice. It is a top-level abstraction. The only higher you could possibly go is beaming your thoughts directly into someone else's brain.
Also it irks me to compare writing to a calculator's log function or a self-driving car. There are absolute correct/perfect outcomes in those situations (the log function produces the correct number, the car drives you to your destination without injury or unnecessary danger). That is not the same for most things AI is attempting to be used for.
Creating graphic arts is also a form of communication. But Procreate makes it easier, even for novice to create amazing art. Consider an aircraft, the pilot is given just few knobs to fly the plane but it still takes you from one location to another. The aircraft is indeed very complex than the knobs given but we can hide most of that complexity underneath the knobs assuming happy path flights most of the time. The higher abstraction I am talking about is the future jargons themselves. AI will allow us to create far more complex stories. Imagine one complex jargon represented by a mandelbrot fractal (to paint a picture of the complexity involved), another represented by burning ship fractal. What kind of operations can I do with these two complex ideas. Can I explore a complex conceptual space with it? We would just say to the AI, subtract one fractal from another and it would handle the details (the definitons, references, related ideas in a free form manner). This is exploration itself. Procreate gives you brushes. AI gives you something similar in conceptual space.
If your body is in good shape, stopping exercise won't make you deteriorate that quickly. What I wonder is, will people get in good shape in the first place.
What I mean is as someone with lots of experience, I don't care about me not learning about the basics anymore as much as someone in their 20s and 30s maybe should.
Not sure what you mean by quickly. Back when I was in racing shape, if I stopped my training plan for as little as two weeks, (probably less actually, but I'm being conservative here) I would have a measurable drop in fitness.
Now, as someone who regularly walks the dog and bikes to work, I've got "less to lose" and probably wouldn't deteriorate as much.
See the recent article suggesting use of navigation apps may correlate in populations to increased Alzheimer’s. Will it happen to you? Maybe, maybe not. Life’s a box of chocolates!
I remember living pre-internet and post-internet, especially post-google and feeling like my own memory was being replaced with an Ethernet cable. The current AI models are definitely carving even more of my brain off, the only thing I'm unsure of is if I'm a better or worse cyborg at each stage. Like even with facts and data at my finger tips I still had to process decisions. I'm wondering what my bio brain's role will be as LLM's progress.
In this Better world, can Ukraine use it to defend itself? Do you see it as a nuclear deterrent, not to be touched by either side? What if Russia is already using it?
Let's NOT jump to conclusions; it could mean many things. For example, a period with other priorities, different urgencies, other issues external to the project itself and beyond our control, vacations, illnesses, or anything else that could impact the commit history.
I think these considerations and the others expressed in this article can easily lead to hasty conclusions and erroneous deductions, too simplistic.
Coding flow, like business needs, cannot always be objectively and deterministically measured.
reply