Syntaf

Pretty open ended question, but curious if any folks here have shifted their views or approaches to software architecture & design with the prevalence of AI / LLMs in the workplace now.

Personally, I've found that the paradigm of "sharp knives in the drawer" can lead to some pretty nasty output from LLMs; it's felt to me like the higher the ambiguity the higher the variance in quality.

This has shifted my approach to A&D:

* Always enforce strict contracts, i.e. the ONLY way to do X is through Y.

* Fail loudly and fail often, assumptions and fallbacks only encourage AI to make larger assumptions.

* Boring is better, the less magic you implement the easier it is for LLMs to understand and extend.

Anyone else have some nuggets of truth they'd want to share as it pertains to A&D + AI?

Hey all, anyone here have personal experiences or resources to share on how companies have successfully approached designing an architecture to handle N integrations syncing down into one application?

More often than not I've seen these systems designed around an inheritance structure which frankly I don't agree with -- given enough time integrations will diverge enough that the once "shared" functionality no longer applies and you end up with a mess of inherited methods and overridden function chains.

I'm not _really_ sure what the alternative to OOO + inheritance is in designing an integration system though, Events? CQRS? Etc?