681–690 of 1001 posts
> But it is an inherently plagiarist technology
Was
> Developers frequently engage in copyright infringement, and so will I, so unless if you're a lawyer, shove it up your ass
"I am a bad person so I get to continue being bad" is not the gotcha you think it is, Patrick.
I’m an AI skeptic. I’m probably wrong. This article makes me feel kinda wrong. But I desperately want to be right. Why? Because if I’m not right then I am convinced that AI is going to be a force for evil. It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze. It will concentrate immense power and wealth in the hands of pe…
Like, not at all and ignoring it
I’m an AI skeptic. I’m probably wrong. This article makes me feel kinda wrong. But I desperately want to be right. Why? Because if I’m not right then I am convinced that AI is going to be a force for evil. It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze. It will concentrate immense power and wealth in the hands of pe…
I’m an AI skeptic. I’m probably wrong. This article makes me feel kinda wrong. But I desperately want to be right. Why? Because if I’m not right then I am convinced that AI is going to be a force for evil. It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze. It will concentrate immense power and wealth in the hands of pe…
Weird to claim the llm does all the boring learning and boilerplate for you as a selling point, but then also insist we still need to responsibly read all the output, and if you can't understand it's a "skill issue". Also the emphasis on greenfield projects? Starting is by FAR the easiest part. That's not impressive to me. When do we get to code greenfield for important systems? Reminds me of the equally absurd examp…
The argument that I've heard against LLMs for code is that they create bugs that, by design, are very difficult to spot. The LLM has one job, to make code that looks plausible. That's it. There's no logic gone into writing that bit of code. So the bugs often won't be like those a programmer makes. Instead, they can introduce a whole new class of bug that's way harder to debug.
Funny story: when I first posted that and had a couple of thousand readers, I had many comments of the type "you should just read the code carefully on review", but _nobody_ pointed out the fact that the opening example (the so called "right code") had the exact same problem as described in the article, proving exactly what you just said: it's hard to spot problems that are caused by plausibility machines.
There's something that seems to be missing in all these posts and that aligns with my personal experience trying to use AI coding assistants. I think in code. To me, having to translate the into natural language for the LLM to translate it back into code makes very little sense. Am I alone in this camp? What am I missing?
>We imagine artists spending their working hours pushing the limits of expression. But the median artist isn’t producing gallery pieces. They produce on brief: turning out competent illustrations and compositions for magazine covers, museum displays, motion graphics, and game assets. One of the more eye-opening aspects of this technology is finding out how many of my peers seemingly have no understanding or respect f…
I’m an AI skeptic. I’m probably wrong. This article makes me feel kinda wrong. But I desperately want to be right. Why? Because if I’m not right then I am convinced that AI is going to be a force for evil. It will power scams on an unimaginable scale. It will destabilize labor at a speed that will make the Industrial Revolution seem like a gentle breeze. It will concentrate immense power and wealth in the hands of pe…
The Netherlands is filled with AI skeptics. It’s a very human centered country, so perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise. But when so many top technologists express skepticism, people don’t prepare. They don’t even consider the possibilities. And they don’t learn.
My fear is that many professorial-types express skepticism because it sells well—and it elevates their own standing. They know better—“it’s only predicting the next token”—and people listen to them because of their authority. And then a whole society fails to prepare, to adapt or to learn.
> Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cut me a little slack as I ask you to shove this concern up your ass. No profession has demonstrated more contempt for intellectual property. > The median dev thinks Star Wars and Daft…
The very same developers that advocate pirating from Netflix or Disney?
He's pointing out the hypocrisy in a class of people (generally, tech-savvy programmers) that have no problem advocating for piracy and gleefully thwarting the concrete IP rights of businesses on one hand, while defending and bemoaning the abstract IP rights of other content creators on the other hand.
My take away is that he's saying IP rights is a weak argument to use to defend a personal position for not adopting LLM's in your workflow, especially given the context of modern piracy.