this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
729 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59300 readers
4374 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Deebster@programming.dev 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

[...] a lot of AI companies are “selling dreams” that this tech will go from 80 percent correct to 100 percent.

In fact, Marcus thinks that last 20 percent might be the hardest thing of all.

Yeah, it's well known, e.g. people say "the last 20% takes 80% of the effort". All the most tedious and difficult stuff gets postponed to the end, which is why so many side projects never get completed.

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not just the difficult stuff, but often the mundane, e. g. stability, user friendliness, polish, scalability etc. that takes something from working in a constrained environment to an actual product - it's a chore to work on and a lot less "sexy", with never enough resources allocated to it: We have done all the difficult stuff already, how much more work can this be?

Turns out, a fucking lot.

[–] Deebster@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, that's what I was thinking of when I wrote "tedious"; all the stuff you mentioned matters a lot to the user (or product owner) but isn't the interesting stuff for a programmer.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

While I agree with the underlying point, the "Pareto Principle" is "well known" like how "a stitch in time saves nine" is well known. I wish this adage would disappear in scientific circles. It instantly decreases credibility. It's a pet peeve but here's a great example of why: pseudo-scientific grifters.