[fragmede]

Just because the machines can generate code that quickly doesn't mean that human thought has changed to moving faster. Everyone's had a problem they were working on, and the solution doesn't come sitting at the desk staring at the code, but three days later in the shower, eureka! hits. Just because machines are writing code hasn't changed the underlying human thought speed substrate. That's why people see nine days as too fast, even in this sped up AI era.

[famouswaffles]

Human speed thought doesn't matter here because it's not human reviewed. The code was generated. It exists and it (now) works to the extent they're satisfied with going through with a canary release. Going on about about '9 days' is working with a mental model that simply does not apply here. That is my point.

If you think there should be human review or that there should have been a lot more human collaboration, that's one thing but accusing Jarred of lying about his intentions is another thing entirely, and one where '9 days' is not remotely the proof people think it is in this situation.

[fragmede]

I'm not sure where I accused Jarred of lying. All I'm saying is that 9 days is not very long.

[famouswaffles]

The chain we're on and the comments I originally responded to have such concerns. And I mean, if it's not going to be reviewed by humans then really what makes 9 days too soon ? Should the code just sit there collecting dust until everyone agrees an arbitrary amount of time has passed ?

[fragmede]

Yes! For the size of the change, I think 30 days would be okay. 3 months would be better. Run them in parallel. Take some time and iron out most of the kinks. Don't break shit people rely on!