If there's anyone working for YouTube here, instead of the "I'm not interested" button I'd like a free text input where I can describe what exactly I don't like about a video.
> The agentic age is, I hope, going to question a lot of old assumptions & needs about what we want to run.
There's no reason to think that "the agentic age" will bring about any runtime efficiency. It may, perhaps, reduce development time but it doesn't introduce any new incentive to make software more efficient. It may happen, in a very roundabout way, by making consumer RAM massively more expensive which might induce customers to choose more efficient software, but it's too early to tell if this effect if happening.
There's no reason to think anything might change, that process execution and what we run is going to stay the same on and on and on. Got it. Stasis forever. Let's not consider anything else!
Well its mirroring a stupid idea back so yeah I agree it is stupid. Really stupid.
It seems ridiculous, beyond imagining to me to imagine software runtimes won't change one iota as the world starts copariticpating a bit more in computing, as we have all these agentic systems spawning. You'd have to be mad to bet on stasis. I don't know why anyone would cling to such an assumption that it's just going to tick on same as ever. That's the goofiest shit.
Software has changed and evolved and shifted forms so many times already. This seems like a very big possible impact. Maybe most people don't see and remain in their disbelief for 6 months. For a year. For two years. For five years. But I think on retrospect it's going to be quite clear that software runs very differently and that we generally did change workload running, execution, runtimes massively, in direct support of the LLM age. There's some question of how long it's apparent. But on a long enough timeline all stasis leads for rebirth. And this is a pretty high dynamic energy age now. This idea that stasis is going to win. And keep winning..on and on: I am a skeptic. I already too too much contrary evidence.
native UIs. Platforms look and work differently and it’s annoying and dumb that every app thinks they need to either reinvent the wheel with their own bespoke UI/UX bs or to use ‘native controls’ but completely ignore any actual platform conventions and make the lowest common denominator of everything.
Very often the causes of an incident aren't visible in metrics because the relevant metrics aren't collected. Sometimes an incident is caused by external actors, etc...
You forgot that this whole discussion started from the question "What contexts would the AI model need for analyzing, let's say, cluster-wide incident other than the observability data that such systems anyway collect already?". If one wants to automate resolution, then it becomes necessary to feed all kinds of information into the decision engine, precisely to compensate the incompleteness of each source of information.
Bad news for you is then, no, it does not and I have a case in point at hand. Complex many-fold cascading incident(s) investigation that spans multiple data centers. I am not making these things up. As much as AI has been shown to be very good in complementing the SWEs work, the same goes for SREs and other similar roles in the field.
Yes, "entire" company codebase is a stretch as is design docs, status pages etc Helpful yes but not a hard requirement per se. In many places you won't find such level of details available and yet the incidents are still being solved
They're still being solved because there are people that hold that information in their minds. If you want to automate this, you need to feed the source code in its entirety into the decision engine.
No, what you descrive is SRE. DevOps was the idea to give people that work 100% as developers the ability to do some amount of ops work (let say 5%), as a way to break the silo between Dev and Ops that existed in older organizations.
I am skeptical that either label is sufficiently well-defined and more importantly well-understood within the industry to offer definitive statements on the differences.
Of course it's misunderstood and misused, but that doesn't mean that more discerning people can't understand where it came from and why, and then used the term properly.
My point was that, as Martha Gellhorn once said about post-war Germany "No one is a nazi, no one ever was. There may have been some nazis in the next village". Even one's own pictures might get distorted by self exculpation.
Due to automation, the used market has gotten more efficient so places like Goodwill are no longer a good deal because they're selling their high value items (like good electronics or 4K Blu-ray discs) to various intermediaries.
If you don't mind me asking, why do you think that? I'm not trying to start a debate, and I'm sympathetic to many of the reasons why some people are against LLMs (the environment, copyright issues, loss of jobs, not liking chatbots, not trusting the current companies, etc.), but I'm curious why you are against them.
(I don't really understand one being so against LLMs that one tries to avoid software that contains even small amounts of LLM-written code, but I know that a lot of well-informed people feel this way, and it seems far more likely that I'm the one missing something rather than everyone else being wrong.)
For the same reason why I try to avoid work done by slaves, for example Chinese solar panels manufactured in Xinjiang concentration camps. They're repugnant at origin.
Go buy an AVR and get yourself a proper 5.1.2 home theater (even in a living room); and then the TV will be just a dumb display with the AVR acting as multiplexer.
reply