If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now.
-
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko Thank you for saying this as firmly and as loudly.
Perhaps slightly a tangent, but it really makes me think about how much people need to remember that the slop side of the fight are, in general, lying liars who lie... even when something seems impressive at first glance, it's just all so much slight of hard.
-
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko AI generates code based on hundreds of thousands of attempts by human developers to solve similar problems that match the prompt the AI was given
Some of those attempts were successful, many weren't & were posted as "pls tell me what I'm doing wrong", many are shitposts & some are so wrong they barely qualify as code
The AI can't discriminate the good code from the bad
The AI hoovers them all up & extrudes a statistical average which has more chance of being bollocks than being right
-
@Tereya @eniko If it make you feel better, I've had access to existing tools that could do the decompiling and relabeling people are excited about since around 2016.
Today's pleasant answer machines expand access to tools most folks might not otherwise discover - which itself is interesting and some times quite useful.
But "more people notice computers can already do X!" doesn't make much of a headline, so we get sensationalism, instead.
@EdTheDev @Tereya @eniko In fact "people notice computers can already do XYZ" is the whole media hype today (X=coding, Y=reverse engineering, Z=etc). And I'm beginning to doubt whether the "computers cannot code" stance is still valid. Sure, computers still need a lot of good guidance, but... that's hardly a new thing in dev teams.
-
@EdTheDev @eniko The main catches I’m aware of is it only really works with older (>15y/o) software and is still expensive. It also seems like one of the more plausible use cases for LLMs since the output is computationally verifiable.
I know some of the “decomps” like for Photoshop weren’t really decomps, but it seems there’s enough actual utility to be concerned with while LLMs are still being subsidized by capital.
-
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko GitHub is absolutely full of abandonware projects that someone AI-generated in an afternoon and then couldn't figure out how to maintain
-
@Tereya @eniko If it make you feel better, I've had access to existing tools that could do the decompiling and relabeling people are excited about since around 2016.
Today's pleasant answer machines expand access to tools most folks might not otherwise discover - which itself is interesting and some times quite useful.
But "more people notice computers can already do X!" doesn't make much of a headline, so we get sensationalism, instead.
-
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko If code that works isn't code, then what is code?
-
@EdTheDev @eniko The main catches I’m aware of is it only really works with older (>15y/o) software and is still expensive. It also seems like one of the more plausible use cases for LLMs since the output is computationally verifiable.
I know some of the “decomps” like for Photoshop weren’t really decomps, but it seems there’s enough actual utility to be concerned with while LLMs are still being subsidized by capital.
@Tereya @eniko I can see that.
To me, the exciting impact is software preservation for history. I suspect that we lose some little piece of interesting source code every day due to a combination of licensing hell and forgetfulness.
I welcome better tools to restore lost code from whatever binaries remain.
I know that the current unsustainable subsidies will end, but with the right experts in place, the same technique should be possible to do slower on reasonably priced hardware.
-
@EdTheDev @Tereya @eniko In fact "people notice computers can already do XYZ" is the whole media hype today (X=coding, Y=reverse engineering, Z=etc). And I'm beginning to doubt whether the "computers cannot code" stance is still valid. Sure, computers still need a lot of good guidance, but... that's hardly a new thing in dev teams.
I had my computer writing all of my boiler-plate code back in 2001.
Computer-assisted coding isn't particularly new.
Folks tell me how incredibly different it is this time, which is valid. But, of course, most of the folks telling me that don't know how impressive my code assist tooling was in 2001. -
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko
I am reminded of what HTML started to look like when people switched from writing it to using layout applications.And I think that has to be so much worse for functional programs. At least a bad HTML page is really just bad for that one site.
-
Well by that definition most programmers can't program either.
Basically anyone that "learned programming" using c'n'p-ing from stack overflow and has never actually looked into the documentation of the language itself would be caught by that too.
@agowa338 ...
-
If you dislike AI please stop saying that AI can code now. AI can't fucking code. Just because it can generate code that works for some very loose definition of the word works doesn't mean it can code because coding is so much more than that. Please, I'm begging you, you do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them
@eniko I’ve had multiple instances of people trying to show me “how good it is for turning 65c816 into C to understand it easier!!” and without fail (nevermind the fact that 65c816 is NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND ALREADY) every time they don’t seem to understand *the 65c816 doesn’t do word-indexing, it is raw address indexed*, and I just have to laugh. Or they’ll “write it in c and translate it with cuckbot” and not account for the indexing already being accounted for somewhere else in the codebase.
Like, one of the most fundamental basics of 65c816 is to know exactly how your indexing is being done, and that it doesn’t change based on the accumulator or index register size!! Literally within 10 minutes playing with the language you find that out.
-
@tuban_muzuru @eniko I'm writing a book, I have already picked the font and numbered the pages.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
