I had stumbled upon Kidlin’s Law—“If you can write down the problem clearly, you’re halfway to solving it”.
This is a powerful guiding principle in today’s AI-driven world. As natural language becomes our primary interface with technology, clearly articulating challenges not only enhances our communication but also maximizes the potential of AI.
The async approach to coding has been most fascinating, too.
I will add, I've been using Repl.it *a lot*, and it takes everything to another level. Getting to focus on problem solving, and less futzing with hosting (granted it is easy in the early journey of a product) - is an absolute game changer. Sparking joy.
I personally use the analogy of mario kart mushroom or star; that's how I feel using these tools. It's funny though, because when it goes off the rails, it really goes off the rails lol. It's also sometimes necessary to intercept decisions it will take.. babysitting can take a toll (because of the speed of execution). Having to deal with 1 stack was something.. now we're dealing with potential infinite stacks.
Because I can never focus on just one thing, I have a philosophy degree. I’ve worked with product teams and spent lots of time with stakeholders. I’ve written tons of docs because I was the only one on the team who enjoyed it.
I’ve always bemoaned my distractibility as an impediment to deep expertise, but at least it taught me to write well, for all kinds of audiences.
The challenge is that clearly stating things is and always has been the hard part. It’s awesome that we have tools which can translate clear natural language instructions into code but even if we get AGI you’ll still have to do that. Maybe you can save some time in the process by not having to fight with code as much but you’re still going to have to create really clear specs which, again, is the hard part.
Many years ago, in another millennium, before I even went to university but still was an apprentice (the German system, in a large factory), I wrote my first professional software, in assembler. I got stuck on a hard part. Fortunately there was another quite intelligent apprentice colleague with me (now a hard-science Ph.D.), and I delegated that task to him.
He still needed an explanation since he didn't have any of my context, so I bit the bullet and explained the task to him as well as I could. When I was done I noticed that I had just created exactly the algorithm that I needed. I just wrote it down easily myself in less than half an hour after that.
in my experience only a limited part of software can be done with just really clear specs, also at times in my career I have worked on things that became more "clear" what was really needed as time went on the more we worked on it, and in those cases really clear specs would have produced worse outcomes.
Which is the real reason agile is so much more effective than waterfall. The beginning of the project is when you know least about your project, so naturally you should be able to evolve the specification.
Maybe it is that LLM coding makes it easier to loop back with little regard for development cost. When you can spend an hour to fix what would have been hampered severely by technical debt late in the process - are we starting to omit optimizing for proper SDLC?
Generally I find that agile works because getting a really clear spec is so hard. You’re slowly iterating towards a clear spec. What is a finished piece of software if not a completed spec?
100% agree AI based dev is at odds with agile. You’re basically going to use the AI to fully rewrite the software over and over until the spec becomes clear which just isn’t very efficient. Plus it doesn’t help that natural language cannot be as clear a spec as code.
I think about this a lot. Early on, as a self taught engineer, I spent a lot of time simply learning the vernacular of the software engineering world so that I could explain what it was that I wanted to do.
Repl.it is so hit or miss for me, and that's that is so frustrating. Like, it can knock out something in minutes that would have taken me an afternoon. That's amazing.
Then other times, I go to create something that is suggested _by them below the prompt box_ and it can't do it properly.
The fact that you think it was suggested _by_ them is I think where your mental model is misleading you.
LLMs can be thought of metaphorically as a process of decompression, if you can give it a compressed form for your scenario 1 it'll go great - you're actually doing a lot of mental work to arrive at that 'compressed' request, checking technical feasibility, thinking about interactions, hinting at solutions.
If you feed it back it's own suggestion it's no so guaranteed to work.
I don't think that the suggestions in the prompt box are being automatically generated on the fly for everyone. At least I don't see why they would be. Why not just have some engineers come up with 100 prompts, test them to make sure they work, and then hard-code those?
I would hope the suggestions in the prompt box are not being automatically generated by everyone else's inputs, I know what matters most is not the idea but execution but in the off hand you do have a really great and somewhat unique idea you probably wouldn't want it to be sent out to everyone who likes to take great ideas and implement it while you yourself are working on it.
You're misunderstanding me. Underneath the prompt box on the main page are suggestions of types of apps you can build. These are, presumably, chosen by people at the company. I'm not talking about things suggested within the chat.
I've found LLMs to be a key tool in helping me articulate something clearly. I write down a few half-vague notes, maybe some hard rules, and my overall intent and ask it to articulate a spec, and then ask to for suggestions, feedback, questions to clarify from a variety of perspectives. This gives me enough material to clarify my actual requirements and then ask for that be broken down into a task list. All along the way I'm both refining my mental model and written material to more clearly communicate my intent to both machines and humans.
Increasingly I've also just ben YOLOing single shot throw-away systems to explore the design space - it is easier to refine the ideas with partially working systems than just abstract prose.
[*] limited bandwidth (8 kHz), providing a valuable opportunity to enhance and specialize models for telephony applications, ensuring better performance and user experience even with low-fidelity audio inputs.
I mean, nothing prevents them from running their existing data through a "noisy POTS" filter in A/B tests to see how that impacts customer satisfaction.
But being able to blame the user's phone line probably goes a long way to avoiding unhappiness due to testing :)
Agreed on the broader use of data. That said, it’s not just about phoneme collection—different channels and UX modalities reach different audiences and contexts. Each channel ultimately delivers unique inputs, fueling more specialized and robust models tailored to those specific use cases.
Discover EmojifyIt: a playful AI tool that transforms text into a universal language of emojis. It's a fun, creative way to see how AI visualizes meaning, making communication more expressive and boundary-free.
I feel they could onboard so many more users by having a fiat frontend that doesn't refer to blockchain. But maybe they're targeting crypto natives so users don't get shocked by price variability etc.
Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.
You know why? Because if you don't have power, your ideas do not come into implementation (you don't have resources!).
Therefore, a dominant group i.e. men or white people, cannot be discriminated against because they are the centre of power - they are the arbiters.
This BS of reverse sexism that you are perpetuating is complete nonsense with absolutely zero sociological backing. Therefore, the men you reference were not "discriminated" against.
In fact, your reference to "normal people" shows how un-nuanced you are in your understanding of discrimination and society in general.
Also, the fact that you expect a diversity of ideas from a homogenous group of people is absurd - unique ideas come through because people have unique backgrounds and experiences - as these in turn act as frameworks for their intellectual products.
Has it ever occurred to you that having people with "diverse" "skin" and "sexual orientation" could actually contribute to your goal of having diverse ideas?
Don't cite one conference as proof for why men are discriminated against. Do you know who was part of the blind review process? and more importantly, does that selection reflect on the quality of scholarship put forth by female candidates or is it the product of the experiences of the people sitting on the panel?
> those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.
First, your definition here is neither the common English nor one broadly accepted. I assert that this is an attempt to redefine language in order to obscure the argument at hand.
Second, power is situational. Part of Damore's criticism is that those in power at Google are sing that power to discriminate against a non-dominant group.
> Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate.
If you take that as axiomatic then there is no debate here if we insist on using the term discrimination to discuss this problem. However, if one can arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever one so chooses them to mean and, in so doing, believe they're redefining what their interlocutor is espousing, then that individual is being truly intellectually dishonest.
Academically, of what discrimination consists and how discrimination is defined, as a word and concept, is still of great debate. Google around for morally relevant differences and discrimination for some sources and further reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on discrimination is a good starting place.
However, in general common usage, the word discrimination is defined as:
> treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.
> a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
Note that in common usage the word is not qualified on the power or status of the agent of discrimination.
Unless both one and one's interlocutor have agreed on another definition it is vital to assume good faith and and stick to commonly accepted words and their meanings. If one does not one is at the risk of violating Grice's maxims and, in so doing, losing one's privilege of having others take one's words seriously. Put simply, if it's a new concept, use a new (or qualified) word. A seat at the table is predicated on clear, honest, equivocation-free communication.
I'm sure you're not doing these things purposefully. After all what is the point of advancing a cause if one, through one's actions, prejudices the very people one is trying persuade? It's rather self-defeating.
It's bizarre that from my response you had to get into semantics, which completely misses the point.
It's not about dictionary definitions of words, it's about how discrimination manifests (or how it cannot in the hands of those who don't hold power). Surely we can debate what discrimination means, but there's a plethora of sociological literature on the intersection of that dictionary definition (that you referenced) and how it comes to fruition in the hands of dominant groups. This is obviously central to this discussion as it was implied that there was somehow reverse discrimination against men.
Please share what you think about that, genuinely curious.
I don't agree with your implication that semantics aren't important in this argument.
What you refer to simply as discrimination is probably better characterised as discrimination by "morally acceptable" traits while your interlocutor would characterise it as discrimination by "morally irrelevant" traits. This, I think, is the heart of the debate. It's clear that discrimination is occurring. The real question of debate is whether or not it's acceptable.
It's politically untenable to admit that and so we do actually have to discuss semantics. After all, can you imagine having to say "I'm being sexist but it's okay, he's male." or being called a misogynist and saying one is proud of that fact?
I didn't say that semantics were unimportant overall, I'm implying that its erroneous to assert that there's discrimination at play against men in this context because to imply so, supports the stale argument that policies favoring equal gender representation discriminate against men.
A fair statement. However, can we make a blanket statement about all policies or all possible such policies? Some of them are quite blunt (i.e. direct quota specification) and others attempt to address conditions that contribute to unequal outcomes and/or opportunities (i.e. hostile working environments). Each policy attempts to address the problem differently with different effects on those seeking to enter, work in, or leave the field. Could some clumsily implemented policy somewhere unjustifiably exclude someone or make conditions worse for them because of something they can't control?
I think the answer to that question is certainly a yes. Is it possible that some of those discriminated against identify as male? Again, yes. We shouldn't make blanket statements or dismiss complaints about specific possible injustices. To do so is to forget how we got to the worse place we were at decades ago and risk going back there (in any direction). I can't imagine any of us want that.
"because of something they can't control" is a dangerous point to me; while I may not be able to change or "control" the fact that I am male, I can certainly gain awareness of my male privilege and behave in a way that does not perpetuate it.
So going to back to the original poster, had he been aware of this privilege he would not make statements about reverse discrimination or some injustice being perpetuated against him or other men due to policies that support women's equal participation in our industry.
Well, you're right. My usage of the phrase "something they can't control" as synonymous with unjust discrimination is culturally based. It is possible that one might, for example, find a caste system to be moral. I wouldn't do so, but that doesn't mean others cannot.
However, I must take issue with your statements regarding privilege. Privilege isn't something one chooses to take, it's something one is given and gives. It is impossible for each of us to escape the privileges we're granted and we should all be mindful of them. Everyone is, in some way, privileged.
Again, this isn't a debate about whether or not privilege exists, it's a debate about how/if we go about ensuring that everyone has the privileges they desire. As such, we all have a responsibility to point out the unjust granting of privilege and to not grant it to others ourselves. As policies are a matter of consensus and systematise privilege, I would say that OP is doing the right thing in calling out what they see as unfair and unjust so that we can have this discussion, just as those with opposing perspectives are doing.
I think we've all already come to the conclusion that equality of opportunity is a privilege we all would benefit from. That is, we should all have the freedom to be treated as an individual in individual circumstances. Now, and as always, we have to be careful to separate the debate of whether or not someone should have a privilege from the debate about how we go around systematising that privilege in order to avoid unintended consequences. We've already had the first as a society and now we have to do the work required of the second. It's always a messy process but if it is to be truly representative everyone with a grievance willing to engage in thoughtful, honest discussion should have a seat at the table. It does very little good to discriminate in the talks about how we end discrimination - we would simply be repeating history and, if we don't like how it went the last time, why do that?
Note: I am aware that the first debate is still occurring in some isolated locations. However, I speak from where I have experience and do not claim authority anywhere else.
Re: taking issue with my statement on privilege -- I'm thoroughly confused by your comment "privilege .. [is] something one is given and gives." Male privilege is an inherent trait. It is up to us to become aware of it and not perpetuate it's consequences in our industry.
Not sure what you mean by "we've all already come to the conclusion that equality of opportunity is a privilege we all would benefit from".. equal opportunity is not a privilege - it's a baseline.
How can you genuinely say that everyone is "in some way privileged"? The whole idea of privilege is that only few have it, especially in the context we're talking about. I can think of so many marginalized groups in society that enjoy no privilege whatsoever.
Lastly, re: "we would simply be repeating history", please shed light on this, I don't really get it.
Regarding male privilege, could expand on what constitutes said privilege and how male-ness inherently entails those constituent privileges such that they're entailed even when completely removed from a given societal context and placed into any possible societal context? If privilege is inherent in male-ness even when removed from a societal construct, and thus portable to any possible societal context, then how does that reasoning then relate to the popular idea that male-ness is itself a social construct which cannot be removed from a societal context? Perhaps I misunderstand your position, but it seems a circular line of reasoning if one holds both true. Granted, you did not indicate that you did, which is why I raise the question.
Actually, given the confusion around the word discrimination earlier, how do you define privilege?
Regarding equal opportunity being a baseline, I would have to disagree. As individual circumstance varies based on, well, circumstance, opportunities cannot be equal except through the privilege of societal intervention to make them so.
In regards to your statements that some marginalised groups enjoy no privileges whatsoever, they may be true in a given sociocontextual frame. However, shift that frame and you might be able to find some privilege, for example those of the same class are more likely to be perceived positively by other members of the same class (a form of tribalism) which is a privilege outsiders do not receive. This is what I mean by "in some way" - I am not holding some privileges as more valuable that others. I suppose the only way to really eliminate privilege is to eliminate social contexts and interaction; or at the very least the experiences of all those who interact in said society. However, that's not exactly a practical option.
With regards to repeating history, well, you might imagine exclusion of voting rights of minorities - disenfranchisement - as a parallel to telling people they shouldn't contribute to a discussion regarding them because of some otherwise irrelevant trait. That is, in a gross simplification, the situation to which I am alluding.
There is just as much male privilege as there is female privilege, and the same goes with any group. It's entirely situation. Seniority in a job is privilege. Merit-based success is privilege. A person with a driver's license is privileged over one who doesn't have a driver's license. Feel free to list examples of marginalized groups that enjoy no privilege and I'll show you others not part of that marginalized group when introduced to that group demonstrate a lack of privilege.
I won't comment on the "best" here as they all have their respective differences, but consider signing up for the Nuance Mix developer platform Beta: https://developer.nuance.com/mix ; we're offering full control custom ASR+NLU.
I've worked at a company where Agile/Scrum was implemented in beautifully and we never thought to change the process.
However, I've worked more often at companies where Agile was either misunderstood, or inserted into an already flawed/toxic process of development as a magic bullet. I think there are enough places out there doing the latter that warrants discussion of this post and how we can improve things.
Totally fair, and agreed on the value of such a discussion; Same deal - seen/lived both. It requires fundamental cultural change (PM plays a big part). When the discussion starts with teams engaging in poorly defined scrum, I usually reference: https://www.scrum.org/ScrumBut.
AI requires a holistic revision. When the OS's catch up, we'll have some real fun.
The author is good to call out the differences in UX. Sad that design has always been given less attention.
When I first saw the title, my initial thought was this may relate to AX, which I think compliments the topic very well: https://x.com/gregisenberg/status/1947693459147526179