• 0 Posts
  • 108 Comments
Joined 2 个月前
cake
Cake day: 2026年4月20日

help-circle

  • Might also be a product of experience, that you have a need for strict scope definitions.

    When I was unexperienced, I would actively look for projects I could do and features to add to them. Because well, most project ideas were too large for me to tackle anyways and I needed the experience.

    Now that I have experience, I have multiple long-term projects that could use some love, if I find the time. And I have the experience to tackle virtually any project idea, if I find the time.

    Don’t particularly want to add another long-term project into the rotation, so I do spend a lot more time thinking upfront “when will this be finished?”.


  • One of the big, national grocery store chains here has managed to create a webpage, where:

    • you cannot open a product in a new tab, and
    • if you click on a product and hit the back-button, it resets the scroll position in the product list all the way to the start.

    In effect, the webpage is practically unusable for actually browsing through products. They’re probably missing out on hundreds of thousands in sales, for something that could be fixed for like 50 quid.










  • Yeah, they have to fight it tooth and nail, because it threatens how they want to do business on a conceptual level. But I also cannot see how they would argue this case.

    If another webpage said those publishers are a right cunt (written by AI), that would be defamation for sure. So far, Google was allowed to say those publishers are a right cunt, because they were quoting another webpage.
    If they’re not doing that anymore, if they’re not even paraphrasing what another webpage said, but just making own claims, then that’s their own responsibility.

    In theory, I could imagine a ruling that says that paraphrasing doesn’t have to be accurate at all times, but in practice, this would be absolute bedlam. Any webpage could publish the wildest misinformation and just say that, oops, they were paraphrasing.
    So, even if they can get such ruling through, there would need to be law changes sooner or later, which explicitly make it illegal again.



  • Kind of not surprising with the ruling a year or so ago, where Air Canada had to follow through on what its AI chatbot had told a customer.

    Well, and I guess, due to basic logic. Any other webpage has to take responsibility for the content they publish, whether it is written by a human or by an LLM. There’s no good reason why Google should be treated differently here.

    Still an interesting development, though. There’s no guaranteed way to make an LLM not say something. I guess, what they could do, is to run a regular script over the output before it’s displayed and then, for example, just not display anything, if those publishers’ names show up in the output.





  • Yeah, I find it difficult, too, especially since management hasn’t caught onto this yet and still wants me to specialize.
    And of course, the answer is that I should specialize in AI, because there’s currently a lot of new development happening there. But that knowledge is also getting obsolete by the minute, with ever more tools coming out and then again other tools that operate those tools for you.

    The one thing I hold onto, is that no matter how the situation evolves, the basic job requirements for software engineering, i.e. being smart and being able to learn quickly, will always be an advantage.
    I don’t think it’s possible to hold onto the confort zone from before, even if the industry implodes from the AI costs becoming transparent. But yeah, I do think we’ll land on our feet in one way or another.