"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not.
-
Heard Cory Doctorow speak recently & he used radiologists as an example--instead of AI as a "tap on the shoulder" assisting & aiding radiologists, numerous radiologists will be replaced by AI but "human" radiologists will have to sign off AI agents results and will bear the medical liability.
@FallsMom @Gargron Many would criticise that by saying good luck on enforcing liability. Corporations with the antitrust and monopolistic control of the markets finance politicians to protect them from liability. That would include covering up the unethical and immoral signing off of Ai agents to protect their profits. The cause of the problem is corporate sovereignty and it’s not crashing in slow motion!
-
@skavish You think I, a maintainer and engineer on one of the largest open-source software projects on GitHub, am not in a position to judge what agentic coding looks like? Sure. Have a nice day!
if you’ve never used it, then yes, you’re not in a position to judge what it looks like when used properly. being an experienced engineer and maintainer gives you plenty of expertise in software engineering, but it doesn’t magically give you first-hand experience with a tool you explicitly said you’ve never used.
you can absolutely argue that you don’t want to use it. that’s a different claim.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
@Gargron AI (note the lack of quotes) has been around since the 50s and has produced many successes; such as the machine vision software that makes pick and place robots possible. Presuming you mean LLMs by the quotes, then you are right. LLMs are a dead end on the path to AGI.
But machine learning (ML) is only one part of AI and LLMs are only one product of ML. Perhaps the eventual failure of LLMs will lead to a 2nd AI winter but non-LLM AI will continue to make progress.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
@Gargron I see more and more coders convinced they must use it. I wonder about the long term effects across the industry when products become a black box managed by Claude in a few years. I am also curious how it will all play out!
-
@Gargron AI (note the lack of quotes) has been around since the 50s and has produced many successes; such as the machine vision software that makes pick and place robots possible. Presuming you mean LLMs by the quotes, then you are right. LLMs are a dead end on the path to AGI.
But machine learning (ML) is only one part of AI and LLMs are only one product of ML. Perhaps the eventual failure of LLMs will lead to a 2nd AI winter but non-LLM AI will continue to make progress.
@MartyFouts We're in agreement.
-
@Gargron counterpoint: we are well past the point of no return for agentic engineering. There will always be purists who insist on writing code by hand but we aren’t returning to that being the default even after the bubble pops. And I think quiet use of AI as glue will propagate more or less unseen through a lot of tech until it is the expected/desired thing vs a bolted-on buzzword.
Are there myriad problems with both of these? Of course. But that much is not “failure” in any meaningful sense.
@mellowfish @Gargron as bad as it may sound, that is the unfortunate reality. People are doing absolutely mind-blowing stuff with AI that up until a few years ago was considered completely impossible from the perspective of any software engineer, yet here we are mixing videogames. AI in coding is not going away also because most companies have very generic workflows and don't really care of shipping good code if AI can manage it and work 24/7 without getting tired
-
@mellowfish That's... just your opinion. Agentic coding (I don't think you can call it "engineering") is heavily subsidized by big AI companies right now, and that's going away sooner or later. The software world will have a painful wake up call from all the spaghetti code being pumped out right now.
@Gargron @mellowfish Open-weight models don’t suddenly get massively more expensive, so this is a non-issue.
-
@skavish You think I, a maintainer and engineer on one of the largest open-source software projects on GitHub, am not in a position to judge what agentic coding looks like? Sure. Have a nice day!
@Gargron thanks, blocked welley.social and @mellowfish
-
calling code that’s currently being generated by AI agents “spaghetti code” is a pretty sure sign that you either haven’t actually used it seriously or don’t know how to use it.
AI-generated code can absolutely be terrible. so can human-generated code. the interesting question is whether you know how to get the agent to produce good code and how to review, test, and evolve it.
-
@Gargron thanks, blocked welley.social and @mellowfish
@mirabilos @mellowfish Like moths to a flame. Happy to be of service.
-
Just leaving this here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BetterOffline/comments/1wrqrww/real_talk_here_in_radiology/
There are a lot of hope from all sides that AI will revolutionise a lot of things. One is that it would be great with an AI to diagnose cancer. But we can't trust the AI to be 100% accurate so we will let one human doctor sign off on everything before it's accepted.
So this doctor is sitting with an ever growing mountain of scans that needs to be signed off on. The mountain grows about 50 to 1 for every scan he signs.
Who do you think will be held responsible of any mistakes the AI makes? Well, he signed off on it, didn't he?
The cost of running these AI's are only low now because we are in the rupture market phase still but soon we will go into the monopoly phase and then the prices will be different. We are already setting up the trap, soon a personal computer will be unaffordable and unusable, you will need a subscription computer on a light computer only having a tiny cpu and memory.
@eq thank you for adding this. It brings a vital aspect that deservers to be looked at during the developments.
I also have many concerns in regard to electricity usage and climate change, besides ethical concerns in regard to independent choice of certain AI systems.I find it immensely interesting to try and grasp all perspectives, analyse and debate them.
-
that explains the confidence
if you’ve never actually used it, then you’re not really in a position to judge what agentic coding looks like when used properly.
@skavish @Gargron We live in very... Curious times at the moment.
There's a massive hype to adopt something that many don't want to adopt, nor should they have to do so, but equally there's a hype train that says 'do this thing or else...'
There's a middle ground where you can use it quietly, and not use it quietly, and it really doesn't matter.
It's the either siders I'm concerned about.When those that hate it hear about it 24-7 it's like passive smoking. It sucks, it's bad for you and you wish you could escape it.
Equally when you use it for something meaningful and before you've had a chance to explain, you've been shut down because tolerance is 'agree with me or else' that equally sucks.I haven't stated which side of the fence I fall on, and I won't here without being asked. I'm not here to persuade or dissuade, just to make a point.
Moderation is good.You can see my thoughts by looking at my personal posts.
Both of you in this conversation have made your decision and that's OK, but there's nuance in everything and dismissing either side out-of-hand means you aren't thoughtful enough to know where that nuance lies.
You = general you, not you two personally.
I see a lot of love and hate recently, sadly more hate than love, more intolerance than tolerance, and that's not really the fedi I signed up for.
If we could step back about 6 years and show one another just a tad more respect, the world would genuinely be a nicer place to live in. -
@mellowfish @Gargron as bad as it may sound, that is the unfortunate reality. People are doing absolutely mind-blowing stuff with AI that up until a few years ago was considered completely impossible from the perspective of any software engineer, yet here we are mixing videogames. AI in coding is not going away also because most companies have very generic workflows and don't really care of shipping good code if AI can manage it and work 24/7 without getting tired
@super_user_do @mellowfish Most consumers find this “mind-blowing” stuff repulsive.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
But AI might find niche applications, such as state/mind control by authoritarian regimes.
"Texas Tech University is using AI to help the university root out suspected "woke" texts from its curriculum, a move that has caused roughly a quarter of the university's staff to look for work elsewhere. The chatbot was developed in response to a state law that requires academia to represent that there are only two genders, male and female."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/10/texas-university-censorship-free-speech/688827/
-
you're extrapolating from the worst possible use of AI to all uses of AI.
of course, millions of people can generate mountains of garbage with it. millions of people also write terrible code without AI.
dismissing AI without examining it is just ideology, not engineering.
-
that explains the confidence
if you’ve never actually used it, then you’re not really in a position to judge what agentic coding looks like when used properly.
-
if you’ve never used it, then yes, you’re not in a position to judge what it looks like when used properly. being an experienced engineer and maintainer gives you plenty of expertise in software engineering, but it doesn’t magically give you first-hand experience with a tool you explicitly said you’ve never used.
you can absolutely argue that you don’t want to use it. that’s a different claim.
But apparently you do magically gain total expertise with AI the moment you use it because it's only then that you are able to tell what good output looks like. So it not only gives you immediate knowledge of using AI correctly but also immediate expertise in software engineering to be able to see that it's producing good code and designs.
And before you do use it -- you can't no matter how much software engineering you've done or seen.
-
Furthermore, I still have yet see a plausible revenue model explained...
@oldguycrusty @Gargron you think the extra half trillion a year for the pentagon is intended for humans?
-
if you’ve never used it, then yes, you’re not in a position to judge what it looks like when used properly. being an experienced engineer and maintainer gives you plenty of expertise in software engineering, but it doesn’t magically give you first-hand experience with a tool you explicitly said you’ve never used.
you can absolutely argue that you don’t want to use it. that’s a different claim.
@skavish @Gargron It's weird to note that you have admitted he has expertise in software engineering, which would give him all the qualifications in the world to be able to tell spaghetti code from any other form of pasta ... and yet you seem to insist that if it's made by AI he's NOT qualified to make such a judgment.
Which means you think AI produced code is magic somehow and is not in fact spaghetti when it looks like spaghetti to a software engineering expert.
-
"AI" is a failed technology, in the sense that it's neither fit for purpose, nor a likely path to its stated end goal of "AGI", but a lot of people's profits currently depend on pretending it's not. I am curious to see how long the hype will last once the Nvidia ouroboros ends and money stops being pumped into marketing.
@Gargron "AI is a failed technology". Sorry what? Every (hyperbole) task right now, from text compression to weather prediction, is being crushed by transformer architectures.
You lot can't be serious
