Eurovision has entries from the members of the European Broadcasting Union, which started out Europe-centric but now has members from other places too - notably Israel, Morocco, and Australia.

I don't see how that impacts the meme.

Corey Comperatore. It'd be quite easy, just tell Thomas Crooks "aim a few more inches to the right."

Yeah, I wouldn't use a framework that didn't let you select the basic model. I'm just thinking about having it automatically switch to a different one during the review "phase". It's not as popular a coding agent these days but I like using Google's Antigravity and it's capable of being told to go through the sequence of steps "plan - > write documentation -> implement the plan -> run unit tests -> do a code review" automatically without needing to be prompted at each step. That's where it would be nice to have it automatically switch for the review.

"Wear the reviewer hat now" does seem to work quite well with the same model, but if more models from different lineages are available it just seems like the right thing to do to switch to another one.

I've become rather disillusioned with Gemini's use of search tools lately. It's odd given that it's a Google model, you'd think Google would be at the top of the search engine game. But honestly, Deepseek's been my go-to lately when I want an answer that's likely to be synthesized from a lot of web searches. I've had it search over a hundred different pages for a generic "how does this work?" Sort of query. It didn't read them all, but it's casting a wide net and it's letting me actually see the details. Gemini seems more willing to just tell me what it "thinks" the answer to a question is based off of its training data, which is not a particularly reliable thing for an LLM to do.

A thing I found quite amusing about the AI agents I've toyed with is that they have a step where they do a code review of their changelist, usually switching to a different "persona" when they write it so that they're not seeing it as "their own" code. It's funny reading at the critiques and compliments it gives the "other agent" it's checking the changes for.

I haven't seen this feature yet, but it might be a good future enhancement to ensure that the harness literally uses a different model for the code review from the one that wrote the code in the first place. If Claude wrote the code have GPT do the review, and vice versa, for example. Wouldn't be surprised if the feature exists and I just haven't spotted it yet though, things change fast.

Indeed. My usual analogy is "it's a team of junior devs at your beck and call, who will do a huge amount of work quickly when you tell them to so make sure you told them to do the right work."

As for the documentation, commenting, unit tests, and so forth - AI is very handy for getting that stuff written too, just make sure to check up on it. For large pieces of work I will often tell the AI to write up an architecture document first, as a separate step, both to make sure it understands what I asked for and to store as future reference for the AI to make sure it doesn't "forget" how the code is supposed to work or why it exists.

There was a fun Python application I worked with an AI on a few months back where most of the code ran as a conventional Python program in a conventional Python environment, but one particular file was being "injected" into an entirely separate and very locked-down Python sandbox to use as a bridge between that sandbox and the rest of the application out in the outside world. That particular file would be the only one that was able to import key modules and access key data, and it couldn't import any other modules that the "outside" application might have access to. Two very different execution environments bundled together in the same repository. But I made sure the file had comments explaining this strange setup and that there were system architecture documents explaining how it worked, and I only recall having to remind the AI once or twice that the change it wanted to make would run afoul of that. It otherwise managed the separation of functionality just fine. And that was with the previous generation of models, the current ones are even better.

Never fear. If I was to apply for a job and they told me "we don't allow AI to be used here," I'd leave that opening available for the software engineers who refuse to use AI.

Simply being the most recent person to talk to Trump is enough. Maybe tomorrow Trump will talk with the president of Taiwan and have the opposite opinion afterward.

In this case the evidence is literally first-hand experience. There is nothing that will change my mind on this because it's my direct personal experience from actual use.

I honestly don't care what marketing says, and if other people have different experiences then that's just them. In my personal actual real-world experience I found that they let me get tons more done and their quality of work is perfectly fine as long as you're using the right tools and giving them the right instructions.

The article says that developers are disagreeing with that in situations where they are "forced" to use AI, and that's fair, it doesn't make sense to force a tool to be used for something it's not good at. They might be using it wrong. I use it whenever it's better than not using it, and that ends up being quite often in my workflow.

The US will become an increasingly isolated market, and thus increasingly irrelevant. Big enough to continue supporting some of its domestic manufacturers at a smaller scale, but the rest of the world can move on without them.

Developers who are told to use AI whether they like it or not, however, tell a different story.

Well there's the problem.

I'm a software developer and I say that AI is the greatest force-multiplier that's been introduced into the field since the compiler. I love using it, it handles the most tedious and annoying parts of the process. But there are situations I don't want to use it in, and of course being forced to use would give me a more negative opinion of it. Obviously.