A Developer's Poetic Warning on AI Integration
Description
A screenshot of a post from the social media platform Bluesky by user @joles.bsky.social. The post is captioned 'applying for jobs again' and contains an image of a job application question followed by a highly literary and metaphorical response. The question asks: 'Can you describe specific ways you have integrated AI tools into your development workflow? Please include any custom setups, automations, or use cases beyond simple prompt usage.' The response is a multi-paragraph, poetic description of a 'monster in the forest' that 'speaks with a thousand voices.' This monster, a clear allegory for generative AI, can answer any question and offer immense power, but it is amoral, knowing 'no right and no wrong.' The text warns that while its services seem free, there is a hidden price. The chilling conclusion states, 'when you dream you see the monster; the monster wears your face,' symbolizing a loss of individual identity, creativity, and originality through over-reliance on AI tools. The humor arises from the stark contrast between the expected dry, corporate response and this profound, cautionary, and almost Lovecraftian philosophical treatise
Comments
34Comment deleted
The hiring manager wanted to know if you could pipe `git diff` into a GPT-4 prompt. They were not prepared for a full-blown SCP Foundation entry on generative AI
Yes, I’ve container-wrapped the forest monster behind an internal API gateway - rate-limited so it only consumes souls at 30 requests per minute
After 15 years of watching tools promise to 'revolutionize development,' you realize the real monster isn't the AI that writes your code - it's the technical debt from the junior who copy-pasted its hallucinations straight into production without understanding why the unit tests suddenly started speaking in tongues
When the hiring manager asks about your AI workflow integration and you respond with existential poetry about forest monsters, you're either getting hired immediately by a visionary CTO who appreciates the philosophical implications of LLM dependency, or you're getting filtered out by an ATS that ironically uses the very AI you just metaphorically warned about. Either way, the monster has already read your resume - it just hasn't decided whether to wear your face yet
Custom AI workflow: Prompt the forest monster for specs, deploy its fabrications to prod, then spend sprints herding its emergent CAP theorem violations
Asked how I used AI beyond prompts, I said I wrapped the stochastic parrot with a retriever, a rate limiter, and OPA guardrails - now the monster speaks with a thousand voices, but only within an 8k context and our budget
Our AI “integration” ships as a feature flag called summon_monster behind a rate-limited proxy with DLP and audit logs - because the last time Legal said the monster was wearing a customer’s face
ts is so peak Comment deleted
or smth, I don't speak genZ really well Comment deleted
ur doing well Comment deleted
this is good Comment deleted
I can just feel how HR didn't even read that and just instantly denied them. Comment deleted
it is also dumb as fuck Comment deleted
how so? Comment deleted
I genuinely do not understand how ChatGPT works well for some people and yet is practically unusable for others at the same time. Are those people some kind of prompt wizards, or are they just so dumb they can't notice it? Comment deleted
Different levels of base intelligence and knowledge Comment deleted
Or they're asking it too much and it just can't handle big context windows, or the explanation of the problem is so bad a regular human wouldn't even understand it Comment deleted
Average tech support guy experience Comment deleted
"when i put string in python, how can it return value of sum of all strings" is one prompt i saw someone do with my own eyes juniors............ Comment deleted
it took chatgpt 6 paragraphs to come up with possiblities of what it might mean and then 1 paragraph to actually answer it Comment deleted
People explaining an error to tech support are a higher level of stupid Comment deleted
i didn't do anything, then it show error so i closed it, nothing is working Comment deleted
I think I know where it comes from. you actually do concatenation using + sign. and a misconception is so common that python even has a special Error message for this case. but if you don't use the sum function, what you do with strings kinda looks like summing. Comment deleted
no they had a task where they received data from standard input, and had to sum the numbers from the input (they were in string form) Comment deleted
from operators import plus Sum over non-integers used to work in py2 though the docs discouraged it. They changed that along with other breaking changes when going to py3 I believe. I'm not sure about the rationale, but making sum() always produce numeric result helps the (optional) static type checkers. Same for ''.join() always producing strings. OTOH reduce() requires rather complex inference to figure out what the resulting type will be. Comment deleted
I'm pretty sure I can understand a change to a Docker file, no need to rewrite it from scratch Comment deleted
ah, so you're talking about ai overall? I've thought I've been talking about this text itself (which I find pretty awesome) Comment deleted
I am talking about LLMs in general Comment deleted
Amount of time spent solving things myself is way smaller than checking LLM output for correctness. Comment deleted
Yes. I have seen so many people ask questions wrong and getting wrong or stupid answers. Not to mention imo stock chatgpt is unusable without "customize chatgpt" Comment deleted
it depends Comment deleted
good concept, but very sloppily done; the monster already has my face, nor is the monster mimicing me shown explicitly to be a bad thing Comment deleted
Better literary "AI bad" quote: Man, the flower of all flesh, the noblest of all creatures visible, man who had once made god in his image, and had mirrored his strength on the constellations, beautiful naked man was dying, strangled in the garments that he had woven. Century after century had he toiled, and here was his reward. Truly the garment had seemed heavenly at first, shot with colours of culture, sewn with the threads of self- denial. And heavenly it had been so long as it was a garment and no more, man could shed it at will and live by the essence that is his soul, and the essence, equally divine, that is his body. The sin against the body — it was for that they wept in chief; the centuries of wrong against the muscles and the nerves, and those five portals by which we can alone apprehend — glozing it over with talk of evolution, until the body was white pap, the home of ideas as colourless, last sloshy stirrings of a spirit that had grasped the stars. —E.M. Forester, 1902 Comment deleted
I what this read in "brother may I have some oats" voice Comment deleted