|
|
|
|
|
|
by klinquist
94 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with this. I recently wanted to monitor my vehicle batteries with a cheap BLE battery monitor from AliExpress (by getting the data into HomeAssistant). I could have spent days digging through BlueZ on a Raspberry Pi, or I could use AI and have a working solution an hour later. Yes, I gave up the chance to manually learn every layer of the stack. I’m fine with that. The goal was not to become a Bluetooth archaeologist. The goal was to solve the problem. AI got me there faster - and let me move on to my next fun project. |
|
|
That sounds really cool. You should share what you used.
> The goal was not to become a Bluetooth archaeologist. The goal was to solve the problem.
I'm sympathetic to this view. It seems very pragmatic. After all, the reason we write software is not to move characters around a repo, but to solve problems, right?
But here's my concern. Like a lot of people, I starting programming to solve little problems my friends and I had. Stuff like manipulating game map files and scripting ftp servers. That lead me to a career that's meant building big systems that people depend on.
If everything bite-sized and self-contained is automated with llms, are people still going to make the jump to be able to build and maintain larger things?
To use your example of the BLE battery monitor, the AI built some automation on top of bluez, a 20+ year-old project representing thousands of hours of labor. If AI can replace 100% of programming, no-big-deal it can maintain bluez going forward, but what if it can't? In that case we've failed to nurture the cognitive skills we need to maintain the world we've built.