Comment by simonw

I think you and a lot of people have spent a lot of energy getting as much out of these models as you can and I think that’s great, but I agree that it’s not what they’re being sold as and there is plenty of space for people to treat these tools more conservatively. The idea that is being paraded around is that you can prompt the AI and the black box will yield a fully compliant, secure and robust product.

Rationality has long since gone out of the window with this and I think that’s sorta the problem. People who don’t understand these tools see them as a way to just get rid of noisome people. The fact that you need to spend a fair amount of money, fiddle with them by cajoling them with AGENTS.md, SKILL.md, FOO.md, etc. and then having enough domain experience to actually know when they’re wrong.

I can see the justification for a small person shop spending the time and energy to give it a try, provided the long-term economics of these models makes them cost-effective and the model is able to be coerced into working well for their specific situation. But we simply do not know and I strongly suspect there’s been too much money dumped into Anthropic and friends for this to be an acceptable answer right now as illustrated by the fact that we are seeing OKRs where people are being forced to answer loaded questions about how AI tooling has improved their work.

> Good journalism would include ...

The link you provided begins with the declaration:

  Written by Amazon Staff

I am not a journalist and even I would question the "good journalism would include" assertion given the source provided.

> I find it somewhat overblown.

As I quoted in a peer comment:

  Dave Treadwell, Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services, told 
  staff on Tuesday that a "trend of incidents" emerged since 
  the third quarter of 2025, including "several major" 
  incidents in the last few weeks, according to an internal 
  document obtained by Business Insider. At least one of 
  those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant 
  Q, while others exposed deeper issues, another internal 
  document explained.
  
  Problems included what he described as "high blast radius 
  changes," where software updates propagated broadly because 
  control planes lacked suitable safeguards. (A control plane 
  guides how data flows across a computer network).

If the above is "overblown", then the SVP has done so. I have no evidence to believe this is the case however.

Do you?

> You appear to be confusing "produce working code" with "exclusively produce working code".

The confusion is not mine own. From the article cited:

  Dave Treadwell, Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services, told 
  staff on Tuesday that a "trend of incidents" emerged since 
  the third quarter of 2025, including "several major" 
  incidents in the last few weeks, according to an internal 
  document obtained by Business Insider. At least one of 
  those disruptions were tied to Amazon's AI coding assistant 
  Q, while others exposed deeper issues, another internal 
  document explained.
  
  Problems included what he described as "high blast radius 
  changes," where software updates propagated broadly because 
  control planes lacked suitable safeguards. (A control plane 
  guides how data flows across a computer network).

It appears to me that "Amazon's SVP of e-commerce services" desires producing working code and has identified the ramifications of not producing same.