41–48 of 48 posts
> A photo illustration created by AI depicting someone skeptical of using AI. > Photo by Nate Edwards/BYU Photo So is it a photograph or AI generated?
Just looking at it, I don't think I've ever been more on-the-fence about whether an image is AI or not. It has AI vibes, but no especially obvious AI artefacts. Nate Edwards is definitely a real photographer, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they produce shoddy and broken code We must have dramatically different approaches to writing code with LLMs. I would never implement AI-written code that I can't understand or prove works immediately. Are people letting LLMs write entire controllers or modules and then just crossing their fingers?
In my experience: Yes. Doing security reviews for this content can be a real nightmare. To be fair though I have no issue with using LLM created code with the caveat being YOU MUST BE UNDERSTAND IT. If you don’t understand it enough to be able to review it you’re effectively copying and pasting Stack Overflow
And even uf you understand the code, that doesn't mean it is maintainable code.
I’m a dev working with AI to build tools for others, but I don’t use them personally. Why? Because they make your writing sound like everyone else, they produce shoddy and broken code (unless you’re doing something really commonplace), and they dull your own creativity. If you’re relying on someone else to do your work, you’re going to lose the ability to think for yourself. AI is built essentially on averages. It’s…
But claiming those strings as one's own is a bridge too far. Of course one might want to avoid inadvertently creating strings that others have already created. Autocomplete can prevent that. But people will inevitably need to create new strings that no one else has created before. There is no substitute for the thinking behind the creation of new strings. Recombining old strings is not a substitute.
"AI" is being marketed as a substitute. Recombination of past work is not, by itself, new work or new thinking. As with autocomplete, there are limits to its usefulness.
For software developers who hate "intellectual property" and like to take ideas from others, this may be 100% acceptable. But for non-software developers who seek originality, it might fall short.
When the people invested in "AI", e.g., Silicon Valley wonks, start throwing around terms like "intelligence" to describe a new type of autocomplete, when they fake demos to mislead people about its limits, then some people are going to lose interest. Software developers betting on "AI" may not be among them. The irony is that software development is already so rife with economically justified mindless copying and unoriginality that software quality is in a free fall. "AI" is only going to supercharge the race to the bottom.
Like it or not, the market wants "bad code". It loves mindless copying. It has no notion of "code quality". It demands minimisation of "developer time". Perhaps "AI" will deliver.
I’m a dev working with AI to build tools for others, but I don’t use them personally. Why? Because they make your writing sound like everyone else, they produce shoddy and broken code (unless you’re doing something really commonplace), and they dull your own creativity. If you’re relying on someone else to do your work, you’re going to lose the ability to think for yourself. AI is built essentially on averages. It’s…
> they produce shoddy and broken code We must have dramatically different approaches to writing code with LLMs. I would never implement AI-written code that I can't understand or prove works immediately. Are people letting LLMs write entire controllers or modules and then just crossing their fingers?
> We must have dramatically different approaches to writing code with LLMs.
I’ve seen this same conversation occur on HN every day for the past year and a half. Help! I think I’m stuck in an llm conversation where it keeps repeating itself and is unable to move onto the next point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just looking at it, I don't think I've ever been more on-the-fence about whether an image is AI or not. It has AI vibes, but no especially obvious AI artefacts. Nate Edwards is definitely a real photographer, too.
The guy's shirt has buttons on both sides
I’m a dev working with AI to build tools for others, but I don’t use them personally. Why? Because they make your writing sound like everyone else, they produce shoddy and broken code (unless you’re doing something really commonplace), and they dull your own creativity. If you’re relying on someone else to do your work, you’re going to lose the ability to think for yourself. AI is built essentially on averages. It’s…
I’m a dev working with AI to build tools for others, but I don’t use them personally. Why? Because they make your writing sound like everyone else, they produce shoddy and broken code (unless you’re doing something really commonplace), and they dull your own creativity. If you’re relying on someone else to do your work, you’re going to lose the ability to think for yourself. AI is built essentially on averages. It’s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either I'm an outlier or this is a bad article/study. All the reasons given are fears: Output Quality - Fears that... Ethical - Fears about.. Risk - Fears that... Human Connection - Fears that... Impairment - Fears that... Creativity - Fears that... My disuse is all about flow and value, not fear. The ways I use it is in refining ideas at a higher level, not outputting code/content/etc (except for rote work).
Programmers are usually the minority. The introduction mentions that ChatGPT reached 100 million users faster than any other consumer technology in history. There aren't even that many programmers worldwide. In their table 3 of non-use scenarios, programming isn't an explicit one while "creating poetry" is. (Despite mentioning CoPilot use as one of their pre-screen options. Perhaps in the 24 situation codes they came…
With the number of bad studies, it might be a better default to consider all posts not well-founded until repeat independent studies appear.
The small sample size probably is the major factor, that along with its subjective summarization.