Amazon’s ecommerce business has summoned a large group of engineers to a meeting on Tuesday for a “deep dive” into a spate of outages, including incidents tied to the use of AI coding tools.
The online retail giant said there had been a “trend of incidents” in recent months, characterized by a “high blast radius” and “Gen-AI assisted changes” among other factors, according to a briefing note for the meeting seen by the FT.
Under “contributing factors” the note included “novel GenAI usage for which best practices and safeguards are not yet fully established.”
…
Do the senior engineers NOT sign off on changes to systems that can take down the production servers? Even if we take out the LLM created code, this sounds like a bigger problem
We may start to see people realize that “have the AI generate slop, humans will catch the mistakes” actually is different from “have humans generate robust code.”
Not only that, but writing code is so much easier than understanding code you didn’t write. Seems like either you need to be able to trust the AI code, or you’re probably better of writing it yourself. Maybe there’s some simple yet tedious stuff, but it has to be simple enough to understand and verify faster than you could write it. Or maybe run code through AI to check for bugs and check out any bugs it finds…
I definitely have trusted AI to write miniature pointless little projects - like a little PHP page that loaded music for the current directory and showed a simple JS player in a webpage so I could share Christmas music with my family and friends. No database, no file uploading or anything. It worked decently, although not perfectly, and that’s all it needed to do.
This is true not just with code, but with many types of complex outputs. Going through and fixing somebody’s horrible excel model is much worse than building a good one yourself. And if the quality is really bad, it’s also just easier to do it yourself.
*LLM
the way private companies work is that they require their employees to produce more than is reasonable given the work quality that is expected.
when this discrepancy is pointed out, it’s handwaved away. when the discrepancy results in problems, as it most obviously will, somebody is found to place the blame on.
it’s not the developer’s faults. it’s a management decision.
source: I’m talking out of my ass I’m just a salty employee who is seeing this happen at their own workplace when it didn’t used to, at least not to this level
I guarantee there’s so much pressure on those engineers to deliver code that they rubber stamp a ton of it with the intention of “fixing it later”
Source: I’ve worked in software for 20+ years and know a lot of folks working for and who have worked for Amazon
That’s basically the story at all the big tech companies, from what I’ve heard. In my time at Facebook, I felt like the only person who actually read the merge requests that people sent me before hitting it with “LGTM”
If companies are going to place increasing reliance on review due to having lower-quality submissions, then they should probably evaluate employees weighting review quality (say, oh, rate of bugs subsequently discovered in reviewed commits or something like that).
When I worked there 20% of the work we had to do had to go through a senior engineer. And getting his time was like pulling teeth.
More of the time he would just nitpick grammar in docs and then finally rubber stamp work. It was awful.