- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
publicación cruzada desde: https://piefed.social/c/linux@programming.dev/p/2495581/yea
Linus be like:
- “I only care about the final results and the correctness”
- Me looks inside
- Final results are shit and code is just slop
Ahhh, I love AI and Linus and how they’re enshittifying everything /s
Seriously, how would anyone in their right mind think that AI can be used responsibly? The only acceptable level of AI use is zero or a negative number.
Removed by mod
As someone who used to use AI “responsibly,” no it cannot be. I never wrote whole programs with it. I generated boilerplate and did a shittier version of rubber ducky programming, etc. Try programming without it and you’ll quickly realize how dependent on it you’ve really become. I haven’t used it at all since spring this year and it’s been great. I actually get more work done without it since I don’t have to double check slop anymore.
I’ve noticed that too, and that’s with using it as a last resort when I’m unable to find my answer the traditional way
Spring this year is like ages ago in terms of LLM development. I suspect that you would need to do considerably less checking now or none (it checks itself) with an up-to-date agent, if you use your harness correctly.
Let me put your point into perspective:
“Try calculating without a calculator and you’ll quickly realize how dependent on it you’ve really become. I haven’t used it at all since spring this year and it’s been great. I actually get more work done without it since I don’t have to double check the calculations anymore.”
I think overdependence on LLMs is a valid concern, not restricted to coding. Studies would indicate as much. It’s good to be able to write code yourself. But I wonder if that is really a skill that is going to continue to be necessary in the future. Being able to do big calculations in your head or on paper is a nice skill to have, even now, but it’s honestly not absolutely necessary in today’s world. It’s good cognitive training, so I would still recommend it and basic arithmetic skills are necessary to understand higher maths and be able to use a calculator.
As I’ve pointed out in another comment, LLM companies are terrible for a variety of reasons and I despise their business models, but saying that the models are not useful is a notion not rooted in reality, imho.
Calculators are deterministic though and you still need to know math. You can’t just enter a word problem into a calculator and get an answer that is maybe correct. I’ve been following AI since gpt2 and imho after 4 the only thing that’s gone up is the version number and the size of the bubble.
I use LLMs very rarely, almost exclusively for rubber ducking extremely niche problems with Bash scripts. Last time I used it was last week. Without fail, it randomly inserts globs on pseudocode variables, values, reserved words, and more.
I have scarcely seen any math people refuse to do math because they do not have a calculator. And truthfully, I would mock them for it if they did.
But I have seen plenty of people refuse to do anything if their LLM couldn’t.
Removed by mod
All of my tools are:
AI has exactly zero of those properties. I like using tools that work, I ain’t gonna use a combine harvester if it fails to harvest my crops while also using 5000 gallons of gas to drive in circles.
When I program, I know what I’m doing. That is a significant speed advantage because I get something that works the first time, is maintainable, and also exercises my brain so it doesn’t turn into mush.
Yes.
I know how my tools work to some degree. I know when they get dull, become inefficient, and need sharpening, or grease, or cleaning.
Because of that i can sometimes appraise alternative and new versions’ advantages and disadvantages, and choose (with at least a semi-informed judgement) when an upgrade might be worth more than the transition/investment/retraining cost. I’ve got it wrong some times, and learned from those mistakes. I get better at managing risks with them.
Some jobs i just know I’d better sharpen them more oftten, i can plan for that. I know how to maintain and even improve them. I can sometimes adapt them, or complementary systems, to make them better at specialised purposes.
I mostly own them, especially the ones that i cherish; I have an incentive to maintain, upgrade and make complementary investments.
I’m sure someone can do all that stuff with AI; but not me, so it’s not a tool to me. Some of my tool requirements seem to be very far out of reach.
It might make them bad. Have you tried otherwise?
I work a lot slower with AI because fighting back the impulse to put a gun in my mouth takes at least half the day.
It’s not “just a tool”. https://gist.github.com/svieira/619d60dea942a8d4498cba3bb6b11c02
LLMs are just software. Philosophy and semantics aside.
https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool
Removed by mod
You should try reading the article.
To your point,
Of course it will be. That’s what the tool was designed for. It is used for bad things because it was made for bad ends.
Is nicotine addiction a problem with people or a problem with cigarettes? Kind of both, right?