Comment

Comment on I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right.

raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

There’s a difference between vibe coding and responsible use.

There’s also a difference between the occasional evening getting drunk and alcoholism. That doesn’t make an occasional event healthy, nor does it mean you are qualified to drive a car in that state.

People who use LLMs in production code are - by definition - not “good developers”. Because:

a good developer has a clear grasp on every single instruction in the code - and critically reviewing code generated by someone else is more effort than writing it yourself
pushing code to production without critical review is grossly negligent and compromises data & security

This already means the net gain with use of LLMs is negative. Can you use it to quickly push out some production code & impress your manager? Possibly. Will it be efficient? It might be. Will it be bug-free and secure? You’ll never know until shit hits the fan.

Also: using LLMs to generate code, a dev will likely be violating copyrights of open source left and right, effectively copy-pasting licensed code from other people without attributing authorship, i.e. they exhibit parasitic behavior & outright violate laws. Furthermore the stuff that applies to all users of LLMs applies:

they contribute to the hype, fucking up our planet, causing brain rot and skill loss on average, and pumping hardware prices to insane heights.

source

Sort:hotnew top

theterrasque@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
You’re pushing code to prod without pr’s and code reviews? What kind of jank-ass cowboy shop are you running?

It doesn’t matter if an llm or a human wrote it, it needs peer review, unit tests and go through QA before it gets anywhere near production.

source
keegomatic@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
We have substantially similar opinions, actually. I agree on your points of good developers having a clear grasp over all of their code, ethical issues around AI (not least of which are licensing issues), skill loss, hardware prices, etc.

However, what I have observed in practice is different from the way you describe LLM use. I have seen irresponsible use, and I have seen what I personally consider to be responsible use. Responsible use involves taking a measured and intentional approach to incorporating LLMs into your workflow. It’s a complex topic with a lot of nuance, like all engineering, but I would be happy to share some details.

Critical review is the key sticking point. Junior developers also write crappy code that requires intense scrutiny. It’s not impossible (or irresponsible) to use code written by a junior in production, for the same reason. For a “good developer,” many of the quality problems are mitigated by putting roadblocks in place to…

force close attention to edits as they are being written,

facilitate handholding and constant instruction while the model is making decisions, and

ensure thorough review at the time of design/writing/conclusion of the change.

When it comes to making safe and correct changes via LLM, specifically, I have seen plenty of “good developers” in real life, now, who have engineered their workflows to use AI cautiously like this.

Again, though, I share many of your concerns. I just think there’s nuance here and it’s not black and white/all or nothing.
source
- raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  While I appreciate your differentiated opinion, I strongly disagree. As long as there is no actual AI involved (and considering that humanity is dumb enough to throw hundreds of billions at a gigantic parrot, I doubt we would stand a chance to develop true AI, even if it was possible to create), the output has no reasoning behind it.
  
  it violates licenses and denies authorship and - if everyone was indeed equal before the law, this alone would disqualify the code output from such a model because it’s simply illegal to use code in violation of license restrictions & stripped of licensing / authorship information
  
  there is no point. Developing code is 95-99% solving the problem in your mind, and 1-5% actual code writing. You can’t have an algorithm do the writing for you and then skip on the thinking part. And if you do the thinking part anyways, you have gained nothing.
  
  A good developer has zero need for non-deterministic tools.
  
  As for potential use in brainstorming ideas / looking at potential solutions: that’s what the usenet was good for, before those very corporations fucked it up for everyone, who are now force-feeding everyone the snake oil that they pretend to have any semblance of intelligence.
  
  source
  - keegomatic@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    violates licenses
    
    Not a problem if you believe all code should be free. Being cheeky but this has nothing to do with code quality, despite being true
    
    do the thinking
    
    This argument can be used equally well in favor of AI assistance, and it’s already covered by my previous reply
    
    non-deterministic
    
    It’s deterministic
    
    brainstorming
    
    This is not what a “good developer” uses it for
    
    source
    raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    you have no clue about licenses
    
    you have no clue what deterministic means
    
    I can’t keep you from doing what you want, but I will continue to view software developers using LLMs as script kiddies playing with fire.
    
    source