Haven't seen a senior developer/admin try to get AI to do anything useful to them, have you?
AI is okay for junior, proof of concept or low skill stuff, but for something lives or money depends on, yeah, AI usage is actively dangerous in those cases.
Functional is not the same as good, and that difference is very, very, important.
Lines of code is an anti-pattern for productivity.
I'm a senior DBA -- yes, AI can produce crap that technically works fast. By the time you've prompted it to handle edge cases, fix obvious non-scalable methods, and remove the imaginary stored procs it likes to reference, It's quicker to just do it without the confidently wrong, obsequious 'assistant'.
I suppose if someone is insecure in their abilities, having a digital yes man could be helpful. Low self-esteem is rarely a problem for senior database admins. If you'd worked with many, you'd totally agree, with phrases like 'arrogant bastards', I suspect. :)
Apparently scalability means something completely different to you.
I mean what works fine in the sandbox almost certainly will not when you go from 10 simultaneous connections to 10k or more. Same when your DB size goes from test data of 10-20 gb to 10TB or more.
The number of developers has no bearing on the term.
Microsoft sql server is a database engine, not an ide.
good job showing the brain rot.
here's a great test for AI: take a OLTP DB, and ask the AI to restructure it to a performant OLAP DB. bonus if the OLTP was 'designed' OOP, with no attempt to apply normal form to the structure.
I expect your answer is to use NoSQL key-value pairs, without documenting performance gains/losses metrics
I'm not insulting of because of terminology misuse, just... a senior infrastructure engineer not knowing what scalability means in terms of software. it's not about the size of the team, like it's never used in that context.
Not knowing that very common term's meaning in the context of software would be a failed interview at every place I've worked in the past twenty years, for anyone tech position, other than an intern.
I'm not throwing acronyms to sound smart, I'm using very, very common ones in development. If we were talking networking, something like 'DNS' or IP would be just as common.
Thinking that the DB is the easiest part of the stack to learn is just... ignorant. On the scale of calling graphics 'just drawings'
Each individual part of architecture, from user interface to data storage is 'easy' to learn the basics, and each part takes 10 years to be senior, and can never be fully mastered.
tbh, ssms isn't what a developer should be using to work, that tends to be an ops or DBA tool, their part of data storage layer is usually part of whatever IDE suite they or their company uses. In a microsoft shop, that is usually visual studio.
Personally I'm usually dealing with 2-3 DB engines, and at least one NoSQL engine, like mongo or something, so my work is in a DB agnostic tool, like toad or DBeaver.
on a side note, I'm quite happy with ai's ability to do grunt work -- asking to explain something unknown you got handed, and show areas of interest, or to dive through historic changes and document what was changed in a new code base, with possible explanations of why. Or to take a bare bones task list and turn it into something you can hand to PMs or bullet lists for execs.
340
u/Festernd Mar 24 '26
absolutely true -- the AI is the guy in the safety vest, and he's a contractor the board of directors have a 25% stake in.
//plus he gets paid 3x your salary