"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.
-
@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 this looks like garbage. Do you actually play and enjoy games ever??
-
@FreakyFwoof @skavish @Gargron While I agree with your ethos of neutrality here, the reality is most people who present a 'neutral' opinion are just concealing a pro or anti opinion, in your case after checking your profile, you have a recent long post praising the AI agents and data centers you are using. So ostensibly that *is* a pro opinion, you are promoting AI to your followers. Using it 'quietly' would be doing exactly that: not posting about it, nor shushing those who take anti stances.
@Shes_Gabrielle @FreakyFwoof @skavish @Gargron excellent definition of centrism, and I'll stop here. Many implications.
-
This is a cycle that AI research has gone through ever since it started: someone has an interesting idea, people are enthusiastic, first results look promising, disproportionate expectations follow, the idea leads to successful new technology that doesn't come close to the inflated expectations, and interest collapses.
AI has always been extremely hype sensitive. That doesn't mean it has no content or value, but it's always a good idea to be skeptical of those inflated expectations.
The difference is that this time, the research involves overfunded companies that believe their own hype and lots of way too rich people believe them too.
-
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.
-
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 I've used it. I got it to write part of a test. It did this 'correctly' but used an unnecessarily boilerplate-heavy approach that resulted in ten times as much code as the more concise method.
I don't use it personally at all for the past year but I know many people who do and end up reviewing dozens of LLM-assisted MRs per week, also client projects I work on in at least one case have LLMs reviewing every commit to a PR. Even the people using it successfully still allow LLM-artifacts (e.g. wrongness I know they would not introduce writing the code themselves) sometimes. I'm also less than convinced they save any time in aggregate. All the other uses of it are a very clear net loss in every context imaginable but especially my time having to read verbose crap.
-
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.
Human "generated" code, your phrasing of that tells so much about your stance. And also about what you think of the process, if it's just about the code as some kind of artifact, yeah you can use an LLM I guess, but code isn't just an artifact, it's a ton of experience and ways to handle common and rare cases encoded into something, I don't think a system who don't have a 100% understanding of the usecases, the ramifications even has the posibility to be what it's hyped up to.
-
ai does not have to be perfect to be useful. repeatability comes from tests, reviews, and engineering discipline. you are describing a tool that needs to be managed and pretending that proves it is useless.
You made me curious I admit. If you found out how to make agentic engineering not a waste of time... Then you probably...
1) Know how constrained agents and codebases have to be
2) Have a sense that 95% of what's critical in the job is still human
3) Invested a lot of time to find that out because it's not advertised muchYet your advice is "try and you'll see, AI can code*"
*If managed well.
🥸🥸🥸
That's a tricky statement. AI industry lives on AGI lies which produces despicable CLI tools and agentic IDE. Knowledge about how to use those things well is fragmented and contradictory. Default mode of any agent is shit.
I get why tech people are angry. Just using the tools isn't enough.
Or maybe you found some secret to make things smoother?
-
@knowprose "not all men"-ass take
@mayadev no idea what you're talking about, or why you did.
-
@joeinwynnewood @Gargron @skavish
what are the odds that, given the speed with which bad code can be created and that management definitely has no idea what good code looks like, they won't push their people to produce huge piles of crap
I would say those odds are very high. But management also pushes people to produce piles of crap without AI. I just spent most of last year fighting management on a poorly designed project where they just wanted to add more features before considering allowing a redesign, despite my proposed redesign making those features a lot easier to add. I've held multiple presentations on code quality that mostly fell on deaf ears. And this was before they switched to pushing AI.I'm not sure AI will make their code worse, because it is already really bad. The code quality of many corporate projects is atrocious. Despite their many automated code quality tools.
Been there, done that. But at least people produce code at rates that generally allow the few capable and competent people in the shop to keep the edifice from burning down.
When LLMs spit out orders of magnitude more code, absent guidance by those handful of capable and competent people, good luck, because nothing but luck will work.
-
it is genuinely mind-boggling. people who never used the tools, or know people who tried them and got shit results, confidently explain to people who use them successfully every day that they do not work. at some point, this stops being skepticism and starts looking like an ideology. the irony is fucking spectacular.
@skavish Yes, I am ideologically motivated in my rejection of LLMs. I'm not ashamed of that.
Vibecoders think a good prompt that explains the problem well, and usually results in working code, is basically the same as literate programming. I'm ideologically committed to the idea that programmers should understand the theory of their program. So I think the vibecoders are fundamentally unserious about their craft.
Yes, that's ideology -- and if you don't have ideology behind your own programming, that means you're just in it for the money.
-
@catsalad @zalasur @Gargron @mellowfish
It's already happening. The biggest recurring topic on developer mailing lists at work is squealing because the company has imposed token limits or withheld access to certain models and devs feel they can no longer do their jobs.
If you can't write code without using an #LLM, you can't write code. It's as simple as that.
-
@hllizi @Gargron @Luminous_J People arguing over things they won't even bother to unambiguously name, just another day on the internet.
-
"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 "neither fit for purpose"
you think there are no valid and effective uses for AI today? it works rather well today, not perfect but perfectly workable and could sustain multi-billion usd worth industry even if nvidia/openai/meta disappeared in a Thanos-like snap tomorrow.
I'm quite optimistic on AI rollout particularly because open source and open weight is due a strong catch up and likely even leadership in some domains. We already see open-claw lead and this is just the beginning.
-
@skavish @Gargron
I program for a living. I've reviewed AI generated code. It sucked. I've had AI review my code. It always got obvious shit wrong.It will continue to suck for the foreseeable future, because it's an imitation engine whose training data prominently features badly-written code and StackOverflow examples labeled ""Here's what I wrote; why doesn't it work?", and it has no actual intelligence.
The more reliable the coding AI gets, the more useless it will actually become, because folks will rely on it for bigger things, and finding the bugs that will inevitably turn up in major projects will be beyond them.
Software Engineer with 28 years of professional experience here (40 years of programming experience in total). Nah, that's not at all a good description of LLM software output and it also seems to be based on a misunderstanding on how LLMs learn from training material.
I have a bunch of equally senior software dev friends. We all use LLMs nowadays.
-
"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 totally agree. What I also dislike is renaming things with "AI" just to make it sound advanced.I heard an advert today for British Telecom saying their "AI business tool" could help your small business. That "tool" was booking tables (that's a CMS/database, not AI) and answering calls (that's an answering machine (at a push, IVR), not AI) etc.
-
"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 EV is a failed technology, in the sense that its purpose is to get rid of gas stations bjt that have not happened even after more than a decade.
The Covid vaccine is a failed technology, in the sense that some people will get vaccinated but still will get ill with covid.
Sure, AI is over-subsidized and over-hyped, but in its base is a great tool for some tasks. I doubt we'll stop using it.
-
"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.
no this is just false
It is true there is a lot of hype, but if you talk to any PhD or MD doing biomedical research, you are likely to find someone very excited about the potential of AI
-
@keisatsu @Gargron @imhotep @skavish So I need to be a dev to understand that using the argument being a maintainer of a FOSS project is enough expertise for him, but not for Linus?
In one answer he said: „I’m right, because I’m a FOSS maintainer. Period.“. Here he says, that being a FOSS maintainer isn’t a argument for being right.
I don’t need to be a dev to understand language and understand, that this both posts are contrary.
-
@keisatsu @Gargron @imhotep @skavish So I need to be a dev to understand that using the argument being a maintainer of a FOSS project is enough expertise for him, but not for Linus?
In one answer he said: „I’m right, because I’m a FOSS maintainer. Period.“. Here he says, that being a FOSS maintainer isn’t a argument for being right.
I don’t need to be a dev to understand language and understand, that this both posts are contrary.
-
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.
