Yea … I keep thinking that the “this will all crash and blow over” anti AI group might be one of the most damaging groups out there right now.

Between giving lots of peeps false hope and the average person probably having a decent awareness of the existence of the problems with AI, I’m just not sure that their perspectives serve anything other than their egos (which I get, but still).

Such an odd way of declaring your incompetence publicly.

Almost every single answer to this post comes from a fucking weak minded piece of shit that actively wants to harm humanity.

Delightful. Thanks for this.

I didn’t know that this scum had infiltrated so deep in the Fediverse, good to know.

Have some spine and take responsibility for what you believe, or else you're fuckin responsible. What a child.

AI is a human thing, not a fucking necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_press

It's getting faster, but it's been pretty fast since 1500 or so.

Unfortunately it will have staying power until we can wrangle in billionaire's

What? You don't know what fair use is, man.
You absolutely cannot do whatever you want with things just because they are online, especially when protected by copyright or other licenses.

So, even if it was a path to “AGI” I would fucking hate and try to boycott it.

But the lessons we think we learned with human software engineering are being forgotten, or what's worse, misinterpreted. They were designed for humans, who work by building internal mental models of the world, and instinctually strive to sync their mental models with their colleagues. But LLMs do not build mental models. They predict what is most likely based on their context window. That's a vast and critical difference.

As these tools are being used today, they are becoming engines of tech debt creation. And anyone who's worked in software knows what a trap that can be. The gains become incrementally smaller as the inertia of tech debt becomes larger. At some point, nobody knows how it works any more, and then you're fucked.

While you can get these tools to write code that "works", in my experience they constantly add tech debt to your project, sometimes in obvious ways, often in subtle ways. Since they have no mental model of how the code base should work, they are constantly violating API conventions. They tend towards verbosity -- in one project, it implemented Haversine distance repeatedly in whatever class it felt it needed it, despite explicit instructions in .md files to use the canonical version.

You can of course keep correcting the bot and eventually get decent results. But that assumes that you are doing thorough code review of *everything*, and what's more, that you yourself actually understand a code base that you aren't actively engaged in writing. That's *hard*.