#️⃣Software Engineering: Programming (Part XVII: More Thoughts on AI)

Software Engineering Series

I've been playing with AI-based prompting in Microsoft 365 and Edge Copilot for SQL programming tasks and even for simple requests I got wrong or suboptimal solutions. Some of the solutions weren’t wrong by far, though it was enough for the solution to not work at all or give curious answers. Some solutions were even more complex than needed, which made their troubleshooting more challenging, to the degree that was easier to rewrite the code by myself. Imagine when such wrong solutions and lines of reasoning propagate uncontrolled within broader chains of reasoning! 

Some of the answers we get from AI can be validated step by step, and the logic can be changed accordingly, though this provides no guarantee that the answers won't change as new data, information, knowledge is included in the models, or the model changes, directly or indirectly. In Software Development, there’s a minimum set of tests that can and should be performed to assure that the input generated matches the expectations, however in AI-based solutions there’s no guarantee that what worked before will continue to work.

Moreover, small errors can propagate in a chain-effect creating curious wrong solutions. AI acts and probably will continue to act as a Pandora's box. So, how much can we rely on AI, especially when the complexity of the problems and their ever-changing nature is confronted with a model highly sensitive to the initial or intermediary conditions? 

Some of the answers may make sense, and probably also the answers can be better to some degree than the decisions made by experts, though how far do we want to go? Who is ready to let his own life blindly driven by the answers provided by an AI machine just because it can handle certain facts better than us? Moreover, the human brain is wired to cope with uncertainty, morality and other important aspects that can enhance the quality of the decisions, even if the decisions aren't by far perfect

It’s important to understand the sensitivity of AI models and outputs to the initial and even intermediate conditions on which such models are based, respectively what is used in their reasoning and how slight changes can result in unexpected effects. Networks, independently whether they are or not AI-based, lead to behavior that can be explainable to some degree as long full transparency of the model and outcomes of the many iterations is provided. When AI models behave like black boxes there’s no guarantee of the outcomes, respectively transparence on the jumps made from one state of the network to the other, and surprises can appear more often than we expect or are prepared to accept. 

Some of the successes rooted in AI-based reasoning might happen just because in similar contexts people are not ready to trust their reasoning or take a leap of faith. AI tends to replace all these aspects that are part of human psychology, logic and whatever is part of the overall process. The eventual successes are thus not an immediate effect of the AI capabilities, but just that we took a shortcut. Unfortunately, this can act like a sharp blade with two edges. 

I want to believe that AI is the solution to humanity's problems, and probably there are many areas of applicability, though letting AI control our lives and the over-dependence on AI can on long term cause more problems than AI and out society can solve. The idea of AI acting as a Copilot that can be used to extrapolate beyond our capabilities is probably not wrong, though one should keep the risks and various outcomes in sight!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

#️⃣Software Engineering: Programming (Part XVI: The Software Quality Perspective and AI)

Software Engineering Series

Organizations tend to complain about poor software quality developed in-house, by consultancy companies or third parties, without doing much in this direction. Unfortunately, this agrees with the bigger picture reflected by the quality standards adopted by organizations - people talk and complain about them, though they aren’t that eager to include them in the various strategies, or even if they are considered, they are seldom enforced adequately!

Moreover, even if quality standards are adopted, and a lot of effort may be spent in this direction (as everybody has strong opinions and there are many exceptions), as projects progress, all the good intentions come to an end, the rules fading on the way either because are too strict, too general, aren’t adequately prioritized or communicated, or there’s no time to implement (all of) them. This applies in general to programming and to the domains that revolve around data – Business Intelligence, Data Analytics or Data Science.

The volume of good quality code and deliverables is not only a reflection of an organization’s maturity in dealing with best practices but also of its maturity in handling technical debt, Project Management, software and data quality challenges. All these aspects are strongly related to each other and therefore require a systemic approach rather than focusing on the issues locally. The systemic approach allows organizations to bridge the gaps between business areas, teams, projects and any other areas of focus.

There are many questionable studies on the effect of methodologies on software quality and data issues, proclaiming that one methodology is better than the other in addressing the multifold aspects of software quality. Besides methodologies, some studies attempt to correlate quality with organizations’ size, management or programmers’ experience, the size of software, or whatever characteristic might seem to affect quality.

Bad code is written independently of companies’ size or programmer's experience, management or organization’s maturity. Bad code doesn’t necessarily happen all at once, but it can depend on circumstances, repetitive team, requirements and code changes. There are decisions and actions that sooner or later can affect the overall outcome negatively.

Rewriting the code from scratch might look like an approachable measure though it’s seldom the cost-effective solution. Allocating resources for refactoring is usually a better approach, though this tends to increase considerably the cost of projects, and organizations might be tempted to face the risks, whatever they might be. Independently of the approaches used, sooner or later the complexity of projects, requirements or code tends to kick back.

There are many voices arguing that AI will help in addressing the problems of software development, quality assurance and probably other areas. It’s questionable how much AI will help to address the gaps, non-concordances and other mistakes in requirements, and how it will develop quality code when it has basic "understanding" issues. Even if step by step all current issues revolving around AI will be fixed, it will take time and multiple iterations until meaningful progress will be made.

At least for now, AI tools like Copilot or ChatGPT can be used for learning a programming language or framework through predefined or ad-hoc prompts. Probably, it can be used also to identify deviations from best practices or other norms in scope. This doesn’t mean that AI will replace for now code reviews, testing and other practices used in assuring the quality of software, but it can be used as an additional method to check for what was eventually missed in the other methods.

AI may also have hidden gems that when discovered, polished and sized, may have a qualitative impact on software development and software. Only time will tell what’s possible and achievable.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Mea Culpa (Part IV: Generalist or Specialist in an AI Era?)

Business Intelligence Series

Except the early professional years when I did mainly programming for web or desktop applications in the context of n-tier architectures, over the past 20 years my professional life was a mix between BI, Data Analytics, Data Warehousing, Data Migrations and other topics (ERP implementations and support, Project Management, IT Service Management, IT, Data and Applications Management), though the BI topics covered probably on average at least 60% of my time, either as internal or external consultant. 

I can consider myself thus a generalist who had the chance to cover most of the important aspects of a business from an IT perspective, and it was thus a great experience, at least until now! It’s a great opportunity to have the chance to look at problems, solutions, processes and the various challenges and opportunities from different perspectives. Technical people should have this opportunity directly in their jobs through the communication occurring in projects or IT services, though that’s more of a wish! Unfortunately, the dialogue between IT and business occurs almost only over the tickets and documents, which might be transparent but isn’t necessarily effective or efficient! 

Does working only part time in an area make one person less experienced or knowledgeable than other people? In theory, a full-time employee should get more exposure in depth and/or breadth, but that’s relative! It depends on the challenges one faces, the variation of the tasks, the implemented solutions, their depth and other technical and nontechnical factors like training, one’s experience in working with the various tools, the variety of the tasks and problem faced, professionalism, etc. A richer exposure can but not necessarily involve more technical and nontechnical knowledge, and this shouldn’t be taken as given! There’s no right or wrong answer even if people tend to take sides and argue over details.

Independently of job's effective time, one is forced to use his/her time to keep current with technologies or extend one’s horizon. In IT, a professional seldom can rely on what is learned on the job. Fortunately, nowadays one has more and more ways of learning, while the challenge shifts toward what to ignore, respectively better management of one’s time while learning. The topics increase in complexity and with this blogging becomes even more difficult, especially when one competes with AI content!

Talking about IT, it will be interesting to see how much AI can help or replace some of the professions or professionals. Anyway, some jobs will become obsolete or shift the focus to prompt engineering and technical reviews. AI still needs explicit descriptions of how to address tasks, at least until it learns to create and use better recipes for problem definition and solving. The bottom line, AI and its use can’t be ignored, and it can and should be used also in learning new things. It’s amazing what one can do nowadays with prompt engineering! 

Another aspect on which AI can help is to tailor the content to one’s needs. A high percentage in the learning process is spent on fishing in a sea of information for content that is worth knowing, respectively for a solution to one’s needs. AI must be able to address also some of the context without prompters being forced to give information explicitly!

AI opens many doors but can close many others. How much of one’s experience will remain relevant over the next years? Will AI have more success in addressing some of the challenges existing in people’s understanding or people will just trust AI blindly? Anyway, somebody must be smarter than AI, and here people’s collective intelligence probably can prove to be a real match. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Data Culture (Part I: Generative AI - No Silver Bullet)

Business Intelligence Series

Talking about holy grails in Data Analytics, another topic of major importance for an organization’s "infrastructure" is data culture, that can be defined as the collective beliefs, values, behaviors, and practices of an organization’s employees in harnessing the value of data for decision-making, operations, or insight. Rooted in data literacy, data culture is an extension of an organization’s culture in respect to data that acts as enabler in harnessing the value of data. It’s about thinking critically about data and how data is used to create value. 

The current topic was suggested by PowerBI.tips’s webcast from today [3] and is based on Brent Dykes’ article from Forbes ‘Why AI Isn’t Going to Solve All Your Data Culture Problems’ [1]. Dykes’ starting point for the discussion is Wavestone's annual data executive survey based on which the number of companies that reported they had "created a data-driven organization" rose sharply from 23.9 percent in 2023 to 48.1 percent in 2024 [2]. The report’s authors concluded that the result is driven by the adoption of Generative AI, the capabilities of OpenAI-like tools to generate context-dependent meaningful text, images, and other content in response to prompts. 

I agree with Dykes that AI technologies can’t be a silver bullet for an organization data culture given that AI either replaces people’s behaviors or augments existing ones, being thus a substitute and not a cure [1]. Even for a disruptive technology like Generative AI, it’s impossible to change so much employees’ mindset in a so short period of time. Typically, a data culture matures over years with sustained effort. Therefore, the argument that the increase is due to respondent’s false perception is more than plausible. There’s indeed a big difference between thinking about an organization as being data-driven and being data-driven. 

The three questions-based evaluation considered in the article addresses this difference, thinking vs. being. Changes in data culture don’t occur just because some people or metrics say so, but when people change their mental models based on data, when the interpersonal relations change, when the whole dynamics within the organization changes (positively). If people continue the same behavior and practices, then there are high chances that no change occurred besides the Brownian movement in a confined space of employees, that’s just chaotic motion.  

Indeed, a data culture should encourage the discovery, exploration, collaboration, discussions [1] respectively knowledge sharing and make people more receptive and responsive about environmental or circumstance changes. However, just involving leadership and having things prioritized and funded is not enough, no matter how powerful the drive. These can act as enablers, though more important is to awaken and guide people’s interest, working on people’s motivation and supporting the learning process through mentoring. No amount of brute force can make a mind move and evolve freely unless the mind is driven by an inborn curiosity!

Driving a self-driving car doesn’t make one a better driver. Technology should challenge people and expand their understanding of how data can be used in different contexts rather than give solutions based on a mass of texts available as input. This is how people grow meaningfully and how an organization’s culture expands. Readily available answers make people become dull and dependent on technology, which in the long-term can create more problems. Technology can solve problems when used creatively, when problems and their context are properly understood, and the solutions customized accordingly.

Unfortunately, for many organizations data culture will be just a topic to philosophy about. Data culture implies a change of mindset, perception, mental models, behavior, and practices based on data and not only consulting the data to confirm one’s biases on how the business operates!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Forbes (2024) Why AI Isn’t Going To Solve All Your Data Culture Problems, by Brent Dykes (link)
[2] Wavestone (2024) 2024 Data and AI Leadership Executive Survey (link)
[3] Power BI tips (2024) Ep.299: AI & Data Culture Problems (link)