Just because a hammer makes for a lousy screwdriver doesn’t mean it’s not a good hammer. To me, AI just another tool. Like any other tool, there’s things it is good at and there are things it is bad at. I’ve also found it can be pretty good as a code completion engine. Not perfect, but there’s plenty of boilerplate stuff and repetitive things where it can figure out the pattern and I can bang out the lines of code pretty quickly with the AI’s help. On the other hand, there’s times it’s nearly useless and I switch back to the keyword completion engine as it’s the better tool for those situations.
It also sometimes halucinates entire libraries and documentation and is single handedly responsible for massive sector wide average vulnerabilities increase.
Did you make sure to subtract all of that negative value before you even considered it as “good”?
toddestan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you invent a hammer which reduces the average structural stability anywhere from 5% to 40% then it should be banned.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Oh, it’s fucking horrible at writing entire codebases. I’m talking about specifically tab completion. You still have to read what it’s suggesting, just like with IntelliSense and other pre-LLM autocomplete tools, but it sometimes finishes your thoughts and saves you some typing.
Zacpod@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Hard agree. Whole codebase in AI is a nightmare. I think MS’s 25% is even WAY too much, based on how shitty their products are becoming. But for autocompleting the line of code I’m writing? It’s fucking amazing. Doesn’t save any thought, but saves a while bunch of typing!
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t think the aforementioned vulnerabilities were caused but the AI writing entire codebases.