From: candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid   
      
   Charlie Gibbs  wrote at 03:50 this Sunday (GMT):   
   > On 2026-01-11, c186282  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Only caught part of the interview with some big-biz   
   >> CEO. Said he stopped hiring programmers a couple of   
   >> years ago, as soon as CHAT could write code.   
   >>   
   >> The interview may come around again tomorrow   
   >> sometime ... if I see it I'll fill in details.   
   >>   
   >> In essence, CHAT and friends now empower the   
   >> pointy-haired bosses to just describe what   
   >> they want an app to do and the AI makes it so.   
   >> No human programmers needed - they're annoying   
   >> and stinky and expensive anyway, right ?   
   >   
   > Back in my first job in the early '70s I came up with   
   > the image of the ideal programmer: someone who could   
   > read the manager's mind, wave his hands over a deck   
   > of blank cards, and have a set of holes appear in it   
   > that was a binary image that would do exactly what   
   > he wanted (heavy use of the DWIM instruction).   
   >   
   >> Now the real-world QUALITY of AI-generated code   
   >> is NOT a for-sure thing. Humans can intuit where   
   >> vulnerabilities may be, what Vlad's boyz might   
   >> get up to. The AI probably won't ... can't quite   
   >> think like a creative malicious human.   
   >   
   > I once heard programmers described as a particularly   
   > pessimistic lot; while everyone else was looking for   
   > the beauty in things, programmers insisted on looking   
   > for ways things could go wrong.  But it's kept me in   
   > work for over 50 years...   
      
   You know what they say, hope for the best, prepare for the worst...   
      
   >> Dealing with the idiotic human ERRORS in data   
   >> entry and such too ... shit, half of my old DB   
   >> code was dedicated to that exact thing. AMAZING   
   >> what clueless humans can do. YOU know what it's   
   >> suppose to be, THEY don't, not at all.   
   >   
   > At one PPOE we had a manager that I actually admired.   
   > If a user came along with an unreasonable request, he   
   > used a word that wasn't in most manager's vocabulary:   
   > "No."  One thing he had us do was tighten up input   
   > editing to where the data would squeak - which resulted   
   > in our rejecting a hell of a lot of data.  The users   
   > were outraged.  He told them to get stuffed.   
      
   That's pretty cool.   
      
   >> "-12152012" as a date ... yep ... SEEN it.   
   >> Whole paragraphs pasted into 30 byte fields,   
   >> SEEN it. There's MORE ... MORE ......   
   >>   
   >> Trust the pointy-haired bosses to specify   
   >> code ? Are you MAD ????????   
   >   
   > My favourite was when a boss insisted that   
   > Boolean data fields must be 3 bytes long;   
   > you need that much to hold "YES" or "NO".   
      
      
   What if the user is using a different language? :(   
   --   
   user  is generated from /dev/urandom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)