Hammers and axes are primarily tools, first and foremost. That's what they are usually optimized for. An axe for battle is not built the same way as an axe for wood.

Machine learning is a massively powerful and potentially useful tool, sure-- but "AI" in its current form has been designed and implemented, intentionally, as a weapon. Hammers and axes generally have smooth handles, as a basic safety feature-- they don't dig vampiric spines into the hands that wield them. They don't PRETEND to chop wood or hammer nails while camouflaging jagged leftover pieces that are going to cause future problems. ...They don't read a fucking GitHub issue title and take it as a command to install an agent on your computer that starts doing who knows what other shit-- look, this analogy can't even BEGIN to touch what's really going on here.

Generative "AI" is a signal jammer, flooding the zone with an avalanche of bullshit that's poisoning the wells of information, junking up communications and news with crap, flooding software with unreviewable masses of code stuffed with time bomb errors at best if not malicious who knows what-- while the companies responsible encourage not just the devaluing of labor but de-skilling the whole workforce-- not to mention eroding critical thinking skills in general and trying to replace human interaction with their own social engineering. They're enclosing the digital commons, manipulating hardware prices to push home computing out of reach, stealing everyone's work, all while feeding surveillance infrastructure that would make the Nazis swoon, AND setting up the world economy for a devastating crash the likes of which we haven't seen since 1929.

But sure, let's act like it's just a cute little useful ball peen hammer that we just have to be careful not to bump our own thumbs with. Fucksakes.

Hammers and axes are dangerous, they can be used as a weapon.

We just have to admit that the clankers will stick around. We just have to minimize the danger.

Comments need reasoning. Code structure needs reasoning.

In those tasks, the plausible mimicry of what's needed is not just insufficient, but dangerous.

There is no understanding or real logic involved in LLM output. Only dice rolls.

Those comments only say something that plausibly sounds like what the batch of text called a "comment" has been determined to be LIKELY to say.

That's not a guess, that's how the thing works. The LLM is the thing doing the guessing. It isn't capable of understanding or reasoning.

-- only a human written text in PR description, and it should actually explain briefly what the pr does.

-- ASCII only. The clanker can easily follow this rule if you insist.

They could, theoretically, utilize the clanker to produce the change, but they should at least be able to understand and summarize it.

My point is, it's a tool. A hammer could also be used for building good stuff and for killing people.

The way you support or refute what I'm saying is through examination & analysis of the mechanisms, not examination of the output and whether it looks like what you would expect from human reasoning. "Looks like human reasoning" is the deception working as intended, and if you're trying to assess it from that standpoint, you're falling for the brain rotting program.

So, my bald claim is that it's a useful tool that's not going away any time soon, so it's alright to utilize it if you know what you're doing.

I don't even need to defend myself, the code is free and there are users already.