Have you considered talking about it? You're in a professional environment collectively working in a new way with a group of people. It's up to somebody to have opinions about what does and doesn't suck. If you silently go along and don't say anything you're dooming yourself and all of us to a lifetime of this garbage.
It's not the ocean, it's the poster's own team. A simple "AI comments suck" in a sprint retro would be trivially easy and would at least start the conversation.
While I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, it is very similar to whenever anyone complains about things where they work. "Well, why don't you just raise it with management?" You're assuming that management
1) Understands the problem ("what are comments?")
2) Accepts that it is a problem ("how can more comments be a bad thing?")
3) Cares enough to solve the problem ("is this issue really a priority to solve right now? just accept the PR and we'll go back and fix if needed some other time cough never cough")
4) Believes you (this can take many forms, but the most common is, subconsciously, "this other engineer says it's not a problem, so I'll just assume it's not since that's easier")
All of these logistical, political and social factors are "the ocean"
Sprint retro is with your own team. And disagreement isn't a problem, at least then there would be the potential to come to a common understanding between the GP comment and their coworkers.
I usually require to file an issue in bug tracker about problem in #3 and then follow all its updates to prevent silent closing by management. It won't help but annoys management a lot and they afraid to get more backlog issues of such sort from me in the future.
Doesn't matter. You'll come off as the baddie. It's the foreseeable future. Best just to learn how to interpret AI generated shit, or learn how to run it through AI and have it translate it to a more concise format without all the buzzwords. It'll take getting used to, but it'll save your career.
You don't have to come across as the baddie. There are plenty of neutral ways to start the conversation. E.g., "I notice that there's a lot more generated comments lately. How much are people finding those useful?"
If you really want to save your career, learning how to have real conversations is a vital skill.
Have you worked in corporate recently or at a particularly toxic one?
Asking because when I was at capital one, certain comments or questions about topics like this, would actually get you noticed negatively by your manager and being disruptive to what leadership wants hurts your career.
In fact being the one to ask and point out questions like yours ultimately got me PIP'ed and removed from the company. So, like, yeah, being vulnerable and the first one to tell the truth is risky. That's why the bystander effect can happen and in politics or risky situations silence is a common response, and why we don't have more courageous people doing the right thing - because the risk is higher on the person speaking up and the rewards aren't disproportionately in their favor (but are evenly distributed though, so its not favorable for you as I learned from a game theory perspective to voice up / defend certain stances).
Capital One is a particularly toxic work environment, and I'm not sure that your experiences there apply to other companies.
I started my first post-Capital One job a few months ago, and I'm still not used to the fact that this company expects everybody working here to still be working here in two years. Most employers are not going through everybody with a fine tooth comb every 6 months hunting for any hint of an excuse to PIP them.
The founder CEO (with a cult of personality) really believes that it is the way to "top tech talent." He comes from a management consulting background and tries to manage the software organization like they're consultants. Leads to a very bottom heavy organization, with a lot of juniors, many of whom get PIPed right as they're starting to become useful. It leads to high turnover with a lot of backstabbing, and very short term thinking because everybody is always focused on the next performance management cycle.
It was really a bizarre place to work, because work-life balance was amazing, the benefits and vacation were great, but twice a year there was this insane hunger games.
They really chilled out the performance management process from 2020 or so through 2023, so people who worked there then didn't always notice.
Ah yeah that explains my experience a bit better. I was there in the COVID wfh time, 2020 or so, then rejoined 2024 when I experienced things not too unlike what you described. (except I joined as a principal, ~8-10 years of experience, and received backstabbing and lies from juniors and managers (edit and tech lead)).
I don't recommend going to Plano, TX and joining the Auto Navigator product division.
I grant that sane behaviors may not always be successful at toxic companies. That seems true by definition. But I don't think general career advice should be based on what is (temporarily) safe at the bottom decile.
Also, if you go back you'll note that I didn't suggest that people "tell the truth". I suggested people ask a neutral question about an obvious phenomenon. If it's unsafe to give an honest answer, most people won't, so it'll be a short discussion. But if it's a topic with some room, it can be the start of a good conversation and possibly a useful change.
Ah, I see. I didn't specifically think Capital one was toxic, though, more recently after sharing about my experience more I've been realizing it may have been.
I can see how that technique works great at a non-toxic company. Thank you.
What is this defeatist attitude? I don't know where you work, but it is not my impression that AI has instantly turned all developers into mindless AI-pilled sheep. If you feel like a simple suggestion like that will cost you your career, then it doesn't sound like a place where any constructive criticism would have been accepted even before AI.
There is no single conforming "corporate world" that applies to all companies. If AI is treated religion in your company that sounds like a local problem, even if it seems like a trend.
Besides, GP was not talking about corporate, but about the inability to even suggest an improved usage of LLMs among their developer peers, as if every line of code generated by AI is now gospel and questioning it is treated as heresy. This level of defeatism is beyond cynical and approaching childish.
This reply is not directed to you specifically, but that attitude is why improvement doesn't happen.
"My peers are all bad", "Management has no idea what's going on", "My boss is out of touch", "My staff keep screwing up".
But if you're consistently seeing the problems while everyone else becomes defensive, you (that think that way) need to learn how to communicate effectively in a way that doesn't result in being 'the baddie' and solve the interpersonal dynamic along with the technical problems. "Crucial Conversations" is a good place to start.
When AI directives are coming from the top down - when everyone above you all the way up to the CEO is all in on AI - the writing is on the proverbial wall. I'm not saying it will be that way forever, but it is the foreseeable future, and those that don't jump on the train will be left behind. It's just life.
There's a reason 3rd places exists. There's a social construct that off-work discussion (even when on-work) stays off work.
If your coworker is professional and cares about keeping channels open, they too will respect the unspoken rules that govern 3rd place neutral locations.
Blame it on the alcohol later on if it actually pisses someone off.
This is the third place. There is no real 3rd place in real companies usually. Not in mine, when i work remotely for company from other side of continent.
I think the biggest issue might not be the immediate team but upper leadership. Companies which have mandated AI usage override a lot of what an individual or individual team wants. If that’s the case then it would be a lot like fighting the ocean, especially if your immediate team sees having AI write docs as an easy way to move the needle on LT’s AI monitoring dashboard.
> My coworkers continue to dump hundreds of lines of AI documentation in every PR and every other line of code has between one and ten lines of AI generated comments
That's the behavior being discussed. In my experience, overly large PRs are a detriment to productivity, so if anything my suggestion (asking one's coworkers to stop that) might lead to an improvement in velocity. If I have to read an essay before and throughout every PR, I'm not going to be able to review that very quickly.
It's the management desired direction, if the place is anything like my workplace. Everyone is all in on AI, and if you're not using it for everything possible, you're on the chopping block.
And, really, it works. You can copy and paste between tickets and Claude, and then do manual testing. Then you tell Claude to self-review for clarity and minimalism, and stop worrying. Sure, today it's not as good as a human, but for almost all the code out there, it gets the job done. There's no skill needed any more, and if the boss doesn't care about quality, I don't see why I should.
Your boss can get Claude to make unreadable, noisy, confusing code just as well as you can.
There may not be a career left in software development with these monstrosities, but if there is, it's in using decades of experience to get the abominations to produce something other than unreadable dreck.
If the code itself truly doesn't matter any more, programmers will no longer be paid.
Oh, yeah, the amount of skill needed for programming is quite low these days, the people paying just haven't figured it out quite yet. There's still some needed, but it's closer to line cook than nuclear physicist.
But the managers won't do it, because you still need manual testing to make sure that the AI models got things right. Managers will want to hire someone to do the manual testing.
The amount of skill required is still pretty high, IMO - if we set a requirement that a programmer thoroughly understand what they're shipping.
If we remove that requirement (as most around me seem to be doing), then yeah, not much skill required, but the system is going to steadily trend towards being a buggy, unmaintainable pile of sloppypasta.
Maybe the models get good enough they can handle maintaining that, but anecdotal reports so far seem to indicate we aren't there yet.
Everybody generally agrees on what is garbage. Lot of senior management doesn't think AI is garbage or even if they privately think so, they don't say that openly. Falling in line, peer pressure, not wanting to come across as anti-AI luddite etc. All those issues affect the individual contributors too + the added challenge of perception in front of those who decide the bonus and lately, continued employment.
In this fucked up job market, it is easier said than done.
I feel like the chain kinda goes all the way to the top, to the level of shareholders. My boss needs to give his boss the perception that the engineering team is firing on all cylinders and has high velocity, so that he can sell that story to shareholders who could easily invest in another "AI-native" company and make more money because they're growing like crazy.
I feel like it's all just perception and how companies can sell their stories to investors or potential acquirers, and everything else can be punted and dealt with later when we get acquired or when share prices are a zillion dollars etc.
I've tried doing this, politely pushing back on problems happening from AI use, and it led to a not-so-subtle implication from my manager that I need to STFU or I'll be out of here (Cisco).
Yes, talking about it repeatedly has been my process. Individual PRs have been changed but the 4 the next day look the same. The typical response is that they did change the (massive and wordy) PR overview from what AI said, even if it was obviously a minimal change at best. I can’t really argue against lying and going through and picking out every LLMism is not so productive in my opinion.
I don’t have time to go through and flag everything or even read the thousands of lines of code changes that are happening.
No, if he speaks against it he gets labeled "anti-AI" and laid off or not promoted. If he stays silent he retains his job.
Corporate Capitalism's main innovation was virtualizing feudalism. Now anyone with a bit of cash flow can be a feudal lord with peasants to do his will. No need to maintain land or fight over it with other feudal lords. There's still fighting, naturally, but now the game isn't zero sum.
The serfs don't get any real say in this model. At best you can bend the lord's ear if you're sufficiently trusted an advisor. But part of the reason you're trusted is to be trusted not to treat the lord like he's too much of an idiot.
A huge problem is that capitalism rewards cash flows and accumulated capital so powerfully that lots of other things just don't matter, potentially for a very long time. Look at GitHub. This leads to immensely extended fuck around phases and "find out" looks like IBM (fossilization and bizarre holdings corporation / dead company parking lot) just as often as it looks like Enron.
I am a programmer but also in management, and if I knew my team thought like that I would be horrified. We absolutely care about what the team members want , like, hate etc. I for once would love someone to bring up stuff like this to me. As long as they are as open minded about things as they would like me to be, there is no issue. But it’s a serious issue to pretend everything is fine while thinking like you say.
Correct. I do believe my _manager_ wants me to have a say etc. but I also know my manager has terrifically little power overall. "In management" just means you can't unionize and have to dance to the company tune.
That's the existential threat right now, isn't it? So much of our industry is top-down being told "agentic programming is the only way forward" and anyone who disagrees is laid off. (I'm in that boat. I've been out of work since April.)
It doesn't feel sustainable now. It won't feel sustainable in the future when companies are trying to operate on an entire fossil layer of LLM-generated legacy code.
Do I expect managers to get smarter about LLMs and their limits or do I "retire" and find an entire new industry to work in?
It's really depressing and there has been a lot of grieving since April that it feels like my entire 20+ year career path disappeared overnight, replaced by something unsustainable and ultimately terrifying.
You believe they are wrong so strongly you are willing to be out of a job rather than let them play the game which just happens to make your job easier and see what happens? I don’t understand that attitude. Couldn’t you just do as you were told and use AI to the best of your abilities making sure it doesn’t push broken code? You can even have fun coding by hand while your agents are doing other stuff behind the scenes.
It's a tool. I use it as a tool. I'm a pragmatist as much as I'm a skeptic. In the one phone screen I've had since April (!) I was asked if I could be a cheerleader for it. I can't do that. So far I haven't seen very many jobs that want pragmatists because most of the job descriptions say that they want cheerleaders.
I haven't talked myself out of a job, the market has said it doesn't need my experience because I can't talk myself in to a new type of job (of being what I consider to be a liar or a grifter). That's not a job that I want, unfortunately my sense of professional ethics is too strong.
But also, yes I have done enough Legacy Code work in my career that I don't think I want to deal with "Legacy Code as a Service" machines and companies spraying entire geological layers of Legacy Code as fast as they can across as much of the company as they can. That's a sustainability crisis that doesn't sound like it is going to be fun to maintain in 3 years from now (or fewer) when companies realize what they encouraged to happen and how much "new" code they need archaeologists for and have few to no maps of.
I was nodding to your post for a short period, then you just had to throw in the usual anti-capitalism zeitgeist rant.
Reframe your context, pretend you're in a communist society, and you could be making the exact same point about speaking up against the grain being bad for you. It feels as though people are brainwashed by anti-capitalism sentiment at the moment, unable to see outside of that context.
That's not the point of my response. It is tiresome, and detracts from meaningful discourse to have the same tired anti-capitalism meme tacked onto everything. It didn't even make sense in the post I was responding to - which is entirely my point.
It's relevant because the feedback mechanism for countering all of this is "theoretically, the firm gets outcompeted by other actors who are not doing the bad things."
I'm pointing out that, due to how strongly capitalism rewards cash flow and previously accumulated capital, that feedback/correcting mechanism is often _extremely slow_.
You might be presuming a culture that protects free expression. Free expression is hard to protect. Sure, you could express your experience, but it could threaten or offend someone "with power" and they use their "power" to punish you and suppress the ideas you're trying to express.
