this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
948 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
82361 readers
4050 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wrong answer. If you don't give them access, the alternative (ruling out not using AI because leadership will never go for that) is to hire high school kids to take a task from a manager, ask the ai to do it, then do what the AI says repeatedly to iterate to the solution. The problem with that alt is that it is no better than giving the ai access, and it leaves you with no senior tech people. Instead, you give it access, but only give senior tech people access to the AI. Ones who would know to tell the AI to have a backup of the database, one designed to not let you delete it without multiple people signing off.
Senior tech people aren't going to spend thier time trying things an AI needs tried to find the solution. So if you don't give it access, they won't use it, and eventually they will all be gone. Then you are even further up shit creek than you are now.
The answer overall, is smarter people talking to the AI, and guardrails to stop a single point of failure. The later is nothing new.
What is this insane rambling?
The alternative is that the only thing with access to make changes in your production environment is the CI pipeline that deploys your production environment.
Neither the AI, nor anything else on the developers machine, should have access to make production changes.
I did say "and guardrails to stop a single point of failure." A cicd pipeline itslef doesn't protect you if it can change that too. You need the same kind of guardrails that would allow a junior dev to f things up. Require multiple people to sign off. Turn on deletion protection... those sorts of things. I work in infra, so I often have direct access to production. More than I should. But not all companies can afford to build out all the tools needed so that I don't need production access.
The answer is no AI. It's really simple. The costs for ai are not worth the output.
Good luck with that. Most search engines use AI now. Not only where you see it, but in finding the content to make it searchable. AI is here to stay. There are things it is good at, and things it isn't. Learn what they are, and use it where it makes sense. Or stuck your head in the sand and see how that works put.
That doesn't answer that statement at all. I said it's not worth the output.
Fuck ai. I don't want a computer to think for me. I want to be pointed to resources I can use, to learn something.
Nah. As a tech people, I am not going to give an llm write access to anything in production, period
Someone created that database. And all those other parts of the infra you use. AI is pretty good for that. But you have it turn on deletion protection, and set up a system that requires another person to approve turning it off. Or you can give it access at creation time, but remember to turn that access off when it is finished being verified.
What are you even talking about?
I'm in favour of hiring kids to figure out the solution through iteration and doing web searches etc. If they fuck up, then they learn and eventually become better at their job - maybe even becoming a Senior themselves eventually.
I get what you're saying - Seniors are more likely to use the tools more effectively, but there are many cases of the AI not doing what its told. Its not repeatably consistent like a bash script.
People are better - always.
The days of stack exchange and such are numbered. Web searches turn up less and less hits that help you solve problems and learn. It won't be long before AIs replace old school web searches. Software projects will stop writing documentation, when instead and ai can just read the code. The way we learned things is dieing. I don't know how the juniors will get to be seniors in 5 to 10 years. But following th AI instructions to test out it's theories isn't going to work for the vast majority.
Do you go on an oncall rotation by chance? Because anyone that has to respond to night time pages would not be saying this lol.
I do in fact. Recently I have dodge the night time pages, but a few years ago I was up plenty of time in the night debugging issues. In many of those cases an AI would have been very helpful. Developers do far stupider things because they are sure they won't break anything. But most of the pages were the result of not enough time spent to make the systems resilient. I dodged the pager currently because as a startup we had so few customers, we couldn't afford to hire enough people to have a rotation. So I was sortof on call. Like the boss had my number, and if needed he would call it. But it never came to that, partly by luck, and partly because I know how to make things resilient. With the low load, resilient isn't as hard.