I like to think there’s a bit of a difference between copying something from stackoverflow and not being able to read what you just pasted from stackoverflow.
Sure, you can be lazy and just paste something and trust that it works, but if someone asks you to read that code and know what it’s doing, you should be able to read it. Being able to read code is literally what you’re paid for.
MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The difference you’re talking about is making an attempt to understand versus blindly copying, not using AI versus stackoverflow
supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks ago
No, the AI was trained the same stack overflow posts as humans would manually search out in the past.
Thus the effective difference is precisely that between an active attempt to understand and blindly copying since the AI is specifically there to introduce a stochastic opaqueness between truth (i.e. sufficiently curated training data) and interpretation of truth.
MiddleAgesModem@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
No, the difference is Stackoverflow is older and more established and AI is newer and demonized .
I’ve learned a lot of completely accurate information from AIs. More so than I would have with shitty condescending people.
You can use AI to think for you or you can use it to help you understand. Anything can be analyzed from multiple perspectives with AI, you just have to pursue that. Just like you would without it.
You think AI can’t tell you who wrote something? Or analyze comments? Or see how long ago something was posted? That’s showing the ignorance inherent in the anti-AI crusade.