Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ 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