31–40 of 95 posts
The author works for a company that builds an “AI ad maker”. And they link to it in the first paragraph.
Not necessarily a reason to dismiss them. If they believe in the bright AI future, it's only natural to work for an AI company.
2. An AI ad generator is one of the worst possible uses of AI I can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about how much progress has been made in the last 2-5 years. I can understand skepticism but not the HA HA HAs
Ha-has are perhaps tonally inappropriate, but when you look at the facts it seems unlikely. What we've seen in the last few years is fairly unlikely to continue forever. That's rarely how trends go. If anything if we actually look at the trend lines the improvements between model generations are becoming smaller, and the models are getting larger and more expensive to train. A perhaps bigger concern is how flimsy the…
I guess the argument of AI optimists is that these breakthroughs are likely to happen given the recent history. Deep learning was rediscovered like, what, 15 years ago? "Attention is all you need" is 8 years old. So it's easy to assume that something is boiling deep down that will show impressive results 5-10 years down the line.
This transition really feels like that. If the metaphor holds (and who knows if it will).
1: the transition will take longer than people expect. I was programming assembler well into the 90's. AI is at the level compilers were in the 50's, where pretty much everybody had to understand assembler.
2: the ability to understand code rather than the spec documents AI work from is valuable and required, but will be required in smaller numbers than most of us expect. Coding experience helps make better spec sheets, but the other skills the original post espouses are also valuable, if not more so. And many of us have let those skills atrophy.
[1] 10 years is questionable. Is being paid $100 for a video game with ~100 hours of work put into it professional work? I have about 3 years of work doing assembly for an actual salary.
And there it is: inevitable. The whole article is written in a pseudo-religious manner, probably with the help of "AI" to collate all known talking points.
I think the author is not working on anything that matters. His company is one of a million similar companies that ride the hype wave.
What matters is real software written before 2023 without "AI", which is now stolen and repackaged.
We're doomed, when even supposed experts, working on these "AI" tools can't help but anthropomorphize those tools. "when edge cases emerge that the AI didn't anticipate" The only "anticipation" that is happening within those tools is on token level, the tools have no idea (and are fundamentally unable to even have an idea) what the code is even supposed to do in the real world.
[flagged]
> What really struck me was how Amazon's product decisions were driven by internal KPIs rather than user empathy. First day on the job or what?
At least this is good material to imagine some funny future sci-fi scenarios like compiler developers optimizing for AI generated code similarly to how hardware developers sometimes optimize for code generated by some dominant compiler's output. In the far future anthropologists discovering dead programming languages inside long untouched AI generative pipelines and trying to decipher them :)
My experience is always that there is a complexity threshold at which things start to take longer, not shorter, with the use of AI. This is not one-off scripts or small programs. But when you have systems that touch a lot of context, different languages and parts of the stack, IA sucks for how to design that code except for probably some advice or ideas. And even there it does not always get it right.
Give any AI any atypical problem and you will see it spit big hallucinations. Take the easy ones and then, yes you are faster, but those can and have been done 1 million times. It is just a bounded (in complexity) accelerator for your typical, written many times code. Give it assembly to optimize, SIMD or something with little documentation and you will see how it performs. Bad.
It is the tool for one-off scripts, scaffolding and small apps. Beyond that, it falls short.
It is like a very fast start with a lot of tech debt added for later.