• @partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5•
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    Verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent human work.

    • @Railcar8095@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0•3 hours ago

      And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work.

      You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies!

      • @partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3•
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams.

        Humans burn out.

        https://maevyn.codes/decoherence

        edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse,

        verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work.

        as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk…

        Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all.