>The software industry is at a standstill

Citation needed.

I see software I am working on at work and personally improving tremendously thanks to AI in that it gets used to solve problems that we previously thought "would have been nice" but didn't have time for.

To give a concrete example - I see lots of improvements in tooling for the SDLC that previously maybe only existed in bigger tech companies.

I was thinking about this when I read a post about what would happen if all of a sudden AI stopped working.

I think we're building a lot of tools with AI that could have been useful without it; it was just hard to justify spending the time building it before in most situations.

definitely. we built a custom eslint parser for scss, html, liquid and yaml and are using it to validate all sorts of rules that were previously just in people's heads. now they are codified and provide instant feedback. if we stopped using AI now, those would still be incredibly useful for human coding.

Linear does this, too. It provides a button that copies a branch name to the clipboard based on the ticket id/name.

NDAs often get signed when you join a company.

Could probably ask the AI what changes they'd make to the email.

Right now.

AI makes it a lot easier; just say 'remove x feature'.

Or even just let me make a thread in github without associating it with files / a line of code. I hate it when conversations span top-level messages.

In today's AI times, I find it a little amusing to think about emojis as an automation of the craft of making ascii art. Is a little different since people don't get paid for that, but there was a creative component to it.

FWIW, I don't think the GP post is disparaging (at least as I read it right now.)

I think it is fair to list limitations from using a library that provides an abstraction; it can suggest why a tool isn't right for a person's use cases.

But it also sounds like this API handles those pretty well.

The issue is that it’s relatively low effort to make false and unverified claims. Defending and refuting it is a much higher effort task for the person doing the work to everyone else’s benefit.

RubyLLM dev literally had to take time to provide code samples and doc links.

No issue with listing legit limitations, but be a bro and fact check claims before wasting a volunteer’s time - and potentially leading other developers on a public board astray.

I completely agree that unverified claims create a heavy burden for maintainers. My only point was about the language used: 'disparaging' to me implies a bad-faith attack or a dismissive attitude, whereas this was just an honest technical mix-up that the poster immediately corrected.

I think part of the confusion with that word comes from things like corporate non-disparagement clauses. In those contracts, lawyers write the terms so broad that "disparagement" means saying anything negative, regardless of malice or intent.

Thanks for the discourse. I never meant it to be disparagement nor do I think it really was.

I checked and it turns out I remembered correctly that setting effort and some of its settings are not portable between providers.

There are some different settings that each provider uses and in order for it to be portable, you have to force some defaults on provider A when using a setting that is almost only supported in provider B.

In our implementation we decided to drop a certain setting when using OpenAI in one case and we decided we can just force some other setting when using Anthropic. But this 'solution', might not be what others expect.

When you build an open-source library you can go this opinionated route and force these settings, or you might go the config route and force people to explicitly handle per-provider differences. I will have a look at what I am able to do in terms of a contribution and then in the PR Carmine can decide what they like.

I learned about Tile via ads in its early days and then eventually bought it.