State of the Market

[Fraidycat]

"Said hello etc and the chap said please ignore the other person as it's an AI"

At least they were open about to you. I mean they can just run the AI off the full interview screen recording and none of us would be any the wiser.

[SchumiStars]

There is vibe coding for non developers, which leads to spaghetti code/ai generated slop when the project gets too large or has been modified too many time. But for software developers there are also approaches to getting the AI to generate clean code with lots of tests.

One approach to doing this is 'spec driven development'. This all a bit new and immature , but you should probably still learn more about it and generate some actual software projects using it. You have the advantage of lots of free time to play around with it.

😀

I'm.actually not that free TBF.

I usually have a structured day which is:
AM:
Breakfast. LI, apply for jobs
Cycling (90mins/25miles)

PM:
Lunch
Gym
Music/TV/,Kids/Wife

Starting to enjoy it TBF.

[TheDude]

On the subject of AI I had an interview for a position last month via Teams. The chap interviewing me joined and then someone with their camera turned off joined too. Said hello etc and the chap said please ignore the other person as it's an AI.

It recorded and every single word, monitored eye movement and facial expressions too. I received a full graded report report after the interview scoring me on lots of metrics.

Having worked on quite a few AI projects I know how unreliable it can be. For me the person interviewing should be able to make the call, not some non-deterministic AI.

Did it ask a any questions about tortoises?

[willendure]

One approach to doing this is 'spec driven development'. This all a bit new and immature , but you should probably still learn more about it and generate some actual software projects using it. You have the advantage of lots of free time to play around with it.

I think spec driven AI development is doomed to fail for the same reasons that spec driven development gave way to agile - the code is the spec (kinda).

If you build a bridge, say the new Queensferry Crossing the spec is the blueprint and costs 1/10000th of the cost of the bridge, in money and in work to produce it. Then you build the bridge and that part is the real work.

With code, getting the spec right is the real work and every decision made in the spec is a decision made in the code too. At least for many kinds of code, this is close enough to being true, that we invented "agile" where we co-develop the code and spec, and learn as we go, taking a prototype and test approach. I think there are areas where the spec/code relationship is not quite so 1:1, and that speaks to some of the shortcoming of agile also.

What are we going to do with AI? Write massive 1 million line specs up-front, then feed it in and get the program spat out the other side and bingo! it just works?

How are we going to write these specs? Probably by asking AI to help us write them, right? I certainly do.

I find Claude Code does work well when given an accurate spec or plan to guide it, but each design that I feed to it is just one iterative step in the development.

Best way I found to control the "big picture" and keep it on track is to define and maintain a list of invariants.

[Fraidycat]

What are we going to do with AI? Write massive 1 million line specs up-front, then feed it in and get the program spat out the other side and bingo! it just works?
How are we going to write these specs? Probably by asking AI to help us write them, right? I certainly do.

The plan where I am, is for the smaller feature specs to be built with the help of AI, from user prompts, and the AI will also generate the code from the specs it creates.

They want each smaller spec to accumulate and build a full spec over time and for that full spec to always be the 'source of truth' and not the code. (Which we know goes against Agile)

They also think they will get to the point where business users, not developers, can chat with AI, and the AI will build a spec based on the chat and then take that spec and generate code, automated test cases and the final build from it. With no developers needed in the loop.

And all quality concerns can be alleviated by having AI agents checking the output of other AI agents.

[SchumiStars]

So...
I did 3 interviews for the same company, including a lengthy code project and a face to face in London. Process started middle of December.

The agent was insistent that my degree must be computer science and must be a 2.1. He asked multiple times and said it would be checked.

A bit unusual, I thought but hey ho. So we started the process and after having to get another certificate from the university to prove all is ok my end and having positive feedback from the last and final interview, absolute radio silence for the last week.

Talk about a complete waste of time and money.

[Dorkeaux]

Schumster, I wonder if when you say "radio silence" it means you haven't contacted the agent?
Personally, I wouldn't let a final interview pass for a week without calling them up.
Just me, though.

[Fady]

Schumster, I wonder if when you say "radio silence" it means you haven't contacted the agent?
Personally, I wouldn't let a final interview pass for a week without calling them up.
Just me, though.

I hear you but a bum on a seat is also absolutely in the agent's best interest and so shouldn't really be necessary?

[Smartie]

They want each smaller spec to accumulate and build a full spec over time and for that full spec to always be the 'source of truth' and not the code. (Which we know goes against Agile)

This is incorrect.

Agile was introduced (building on earlier iterative development methodologies such as Spiral) to address the issue with building a large, detailed specification before a lengthy development period. This resulted in the product failing to meet current business requirements and changes to the specification were difficult and expensive.

In Agile (e.g. Scrum), the specification is built up from individual User Stories and the code reflects those requirements.
The downside is that your spec is more difficult to read/understand as it's spread across hundreds or thousands of documents, some of which modify earlier requirements.
The benefit is that the product better reflects business requirements right now, not a year ago.

[Dorkeaux]

I hear you but a bum on a seat is also absolutely in the agent's best interest and so shouldn't really be necessary?

Reminds me of the old joke where you mime using a wheelchair and proudly proclaim "I was in the right!".