[jfim]

The good thing is since the feature was cheap to implement, you can just say "this was a bad idea" and remove it, as long as adding that feature wasn't a one way decision. People are typically more reticent to remove things that were hard to implement, even if that's the right thing to do.

[overgard]

That's the problem, even with an LLM, removing a feature two weeks later can be a nightmare because things have grown to depend on it. In a way it's even harder because the velocity of stuff piling in is much greater.

[fg137]

> you can just say "this was a bad idea" and remove it

Have you ever actually done that in a "serious" product, or just made it up?

In any product with actual customers, especially those from other (big) companies, features don't just go away at the snap of a finger. Otherwise, have fun discovering users moving to your competitors.

Anecdotally, a product from another company had removed or made significant changes to important features our users rely on every day multiple times with short notice, several times. We didn't hesitate to migrate to another service, which completed within about a month.

[kibwen]

> People are typically more reticent to remove things that were hard to implement, even if that's the right thing to do.

Careful. The sunk cost fallacy isn't just about time, it's also about money, and people may naturally be reluctant to remove bad features that cost them a lot of tokens, especially if the act of removal itself is going to cost even more tokens.

[jfim]

That's a pretty good point, and I assume at $work they wouldn't appreciate throwing away $n dollars worth of code.