This is a wonderfully balanced and accurate take. I have been looking for the right medium of using AI to assist me. Cannot agree more on the three patterns to implement and there to avoid.
If the three good patterns are adhered to, these AI tools can help us become more knowledgeable, productive.
We get to retain our cognitive abilities and the desire to pursue code development as a means to solving hard problems.
Adopting the anti-patterns, on the other hand, could lead to over-reliance on AI, anxiety when the tools go down (this happens! ), the atrophy of ability to debug and the yearning for immediate gratification and quick fixes.
Most insidiously, when code inevitably fails in production on cases the developer should have reasoned about and covered, they have no option but to toss it back to the AI tool, thereby, creating a vicious cycle of anxiety, helplessness and cognitive decay.
I wholeheartedly concur with the gist of this sentiment.
An example from my own life.
I’m an avid coffee drinker, and consume 2 doppio espressos a day.
I’m often asked why I don’t just buy an espresso machine and save some money.
To which I respond:
- I look forward to the small interactions when I order coffee
- I build a sense of community where I live/work
- I enjoy the opportunity to tip and give back( albeit in a very small way)
- I’m buying something I like everyday, and this leads to a sense of fulfillment
- I don’t accumulate anything that I need to lug around/maintain
+1 for the general fantasticness. I use the app on my iphone - no problems whatsoever. They even recently updated their watch app to stream directly (without the phone being nearby). Apple music has had this feature for a while.
1. The 80-20 rule - remember that meeting 80% of the spec takes just 20% of the time and plan accordingly.
This cuts both ways. In most cases, it’s not too much work to build a prototype and ascertain whether its worthwhile to pursue further, but attaining feature completeness, even asymptotically, requires a lot more effort.
2. Be mindful of the sunk cost fallacy - it is important to identify the point of diminishing/no return and turn back immediately.
Corollary - if you think you are most likely wrong, admit to this openly, to yourself and your peers.
3. Talk the walk - If you are convinced that you have a good product/feature, don’t hesitate to push for its adoption, even in the face of inertia/resistance.
4. Remember that integrity is doing the right thing even when this may be disadvantageous to you in the short term.
If we proceed on the assumption that exposure to higher viral load correlates to more severe symptoms and fatality, I think the trend can be attributed to the drop in viral load averaged over those being infected.
1. At the start of the pandemic, the older and more vulnerable were affected disproportionately. These patients had a high viral load.
2. Patients with more severe symptoms are now isolating at home or at hospitals. Previously they may have been contributing to serious super-spreader like situations.
3. PPE/Mask usage is more common now and these are possibly protecting most people against high exposure
4. Antivirals could be reducing the length of stay at hospitals and protecting workers from higher exposure
In other words, the virus is spreading but in a less severe form. However, I don't think fundamentally different (less virulent) mutations are the contributing to the lower death rate.
Apropos. I’m stealing that line.