It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!).
-
@jmax @flooper I think I'm with you. The difficult part of LLMs for code generation for me is that the bullshit is executable. I can and do dismiss AI "prose", "art" and "music" easily because it is devoid of what makes me want to consume the thing in the first place. Code is primarirly consumed by machines, however, and its primary purpose is the functionality that it provides. That sets it apart from other slop.
@hanshuebner @flooper And the assumption that it's OK to build high rise apartments from paper mache, which is what I'm being asked to swallow, is not OK.
And the fact that we have a sophisticated machine for patching together buildings from recycled concrete slabs patched together with paper mache - carefully concealed where possible, or skillfully painted with stucco where necessary - makes it worse, not better.
Even if they do stand up for a little while before they collapse.
-
@hanshuebner @flooper Yes. But useful tools are those machines which do have honesty, in a mechanical sense.
-
@matt @dalias One part of the conversation is of course the craftmanship - You write high-quality code as a matter of your ethos, and you employ the tools that you believe help you do that best. While other developers can be the judge of that, your users really cannot. To them, it is the external behavior of your code that matters.
Now, you can argue how user satisfaction is possible only with high-quality code, but that'd be mostly a theoretical discussion because most code in existence 1/
@matt @dalias is not of high quality.
So we have an internal and an external view on quality that are not necessarily the same. At the same time, we have the external force for functionality, and I'd argue that to users, that force is more important than the internal quality of the code, which matters (only) to us.
The realization that with LLM help, people can create something that satisfies the desire of users in short amount of time will create more pull towards meeting those desires. 2/
-
@matt @dalias is not of high quality.
So we have an internal and an external view on quality that are not necessarily the same. At the same time, we have the external force for functionality, and I'd argue that to users, that force is more important than the internal quality of the code, which matters (only) to us.
The realization that with LLM help, people can create something that satisfies the desire of users in short amount of time will create more pull towards meeting those desires. 2/
@matt @dalias Saying that the desire can't be met because we can't create the software with the internal quality that we desire won't be successful in the long run.
Sure, some users will use bad software written with LLM help, blame it on LLMs and then ask for a handcrafted solution, if they can afford it. But that will be the exception, not the norm.
This is why I believe that as a software developer, I need to know how to work with LLMs rather than avoid them. YMMV. 3/3
-
@matt @dalias Saying that the desire can't be met because we can't create the software with the internal quality that we desire won't be successful in the long run.
Sure, some users will use bad software written with LLM help, blame it on LLMs and then ask for a handcrafted solution, if they can afford it. But that will be the exception, not the norm.
This is why I believe that as a software developer, I need to know how to work with LLMs rather than avoid them. YMMV. 3/3
@hanshuebner @dalias I'm sympathetic to the argument that creating more software and implementing more features faster isn't just about making money, but about solving problems, including problems that are causing suffering because a solution hasn't yet been implemented. I'm thinking in particular of the field that I work in, accessibility for disabled people. But programming via gambling, as one does when using an LLM, isn't the only way to address that urgency.
-
@hanshuebner @flooper And the assumption that it's OK to build high rise apartments from paper mache, which is what I'm being asked to swallow, is not OK.
And the fact that we have a sophisticated machine for patching together buildings from recycled concrete slabs patched together with paper mache - carefully concealed where possible, or skillfully painted with stucco where necessary - makes it worse, not better.
Even if they do stand up for a little while before they collapse.
-
@hanshuebner @dalias I'm sympathetic to the argument that creating more software and implementing more features faster isn't just about making money, but about solving problems, including problems that are causing suffering because a solution hasn't yet been implemented. I'm thinking in particular of the field that I work in, accessibility for disabled people. But programming via gambling, as one does when using an LLM, isn't the only way to address that urgency.
-
@hanshuebner @dalias I'm apprehensive about trying a full agent-based workflow because I'm afraid I'll be so dazzled by what it can do (unreliably) via brute force that I'll let my guard down in terms of evaluating it critically.
-
@hanshuebner @matt Yes it can hurt to try them. They are cognitohazards and are designed to make you think they're doing things they're not. This works on a lot of people, even people who think themselves very intelligent and thereby immune.
This is how we end up with folks praising them while putting out clearly worse writing, code, etc. that nobody wants.
-
It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!). I've seen a few blog posts now that talk about how some people just "love the craft", "delight in making something just right, like knitting", etc, as opposed to people who just "want to make it work". As if that explains the divide.
How about this, some people resent the notion of being a babysitter to a stochastic token machine, hastening their own cognitive decline. Some people resent paying rent to a handful of US companies, all coming directly out of the TESCREAL human extinction cult, to be able to write software. Some people resent the "worse is better" steady decline of software quality over the past two decades, now supercharged. Some people resent that the hegemonic computing ecosystem is entirely shaped by the logic of venture capital. Some people hate that the digital commons is walled off and sold back to us. Oh and I guess some people also don't like the thought of making coding several orders of magnitude more energy intensive during a climate emergency.
But sure, no, it's really because we mourn the loss of our hobby.
@plexus Let's not forget that code output by LLMs are probably not subject to copyright (and include training on copyrighted works), making them a legal landmine for any project or product that includes output from LLMs.
-
@hanshuebner @dalias I'm apprehensive about trying a full agent-based workflow because I'm afraid I'll be so dazzled by what it can do (unreliably) via brute force that I'll let my guard down in terms of evaluating it critically.
-
@hanshuebner @matt You realize you sound exactly like a drug dealer, right?
-
I have, and it failed to complete the task AND "lied" to me at the same time.
-
@schaueho @hanshuebner @grishka
I will never begrudge a person's decision to boycott LLM usage.
But I do grow weary of folk on Mastodon earnestly insisting that "the flaws in LLMs will somehow all be laid bare, and handcrafted, artisanal code is somehow inherently superior"
Y'all cheering for John Henry without understanding that this is a job that's actually very well suited for a machine.
@dusk
OT, but cool John Henry video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kt9NSMZR0dM -
I have, and it failed to complete the task AND "lied" to me at the same time.
@BoydStephenSmithJr @grishka If you have the expectation that it should complete the task flawlessly and point out that it "lied", it seems that you have achieved your goal of showing that it did not work for you.
I've had many successes, and none of the things that I created magically collapsed or failed to work except under narrow circumstances. I had to spend time creating and improving them, but I would not have started them if I'd needed to write the code myself.
-
@tiotasram @matt @hanshuebner @dalias Honestly, I don't think even the AI labs are ignoring these issues. At the very least Anthropic has been fairly up front about these concerns and reporting them in their research and surveywork.
Their most recent one is pretty comprehensive: https://www.anthropic.com/features/81k-interviews
-
It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!). I've seen a few blog posts now that talk about how some people just "love the craft", "delight in making something just right, like knitting", etc, as opposed to people who just "want to make it work". As if that explains the divide.
How about this, some people resent the notion of being a babysitter to a stochastic token machine, hastening their own cognitive decline. Some people resent paying rent to a handful of US companies, all coming directly out of the TESCREAL human extinction cult, to be able to write software. Some people resent the "worse is better" steady decline of software quality over the past two decades, now supercharged. Some people resent that the hegemonic computing ecosystem is entirely shaped by the logic of venture capital. Some people hate that the digital commons is walled off and sold back to us. Oh and I guess some people also don't like the thought of making coding several orders of magnitude more energy intensive during a climate emergency.
But sure, no, it's really because we mourn the loss of our hobby.
@plexus@toot.cat I mean, it can be both.
-
@plexus and i also feel we should be standing in solidarity with other affected professions to form a unified front against all generative "ai"
stand together with artists, writers, journalists, translators, etc etc against this morally corrupt technology@lumi@snug.moe @plexus@toot.cat Absolutely. Hold the line. On all fronts.
-
I love to listen to virgins talk about sex.
It's very fun.@n_dimension@infosec.exchange @plexus@toot.cat "You probably haven't even tasted shit before."
-
It's clear that AI assisted coding is dividing developers (welcome to the culture wars!). I've seen a few blog posts now that talk about how some people just "love the craft", "delight in making something just right, like knitting", etc, as opposed to people who just "want to make it work". As if that explains the divide.
How about this, some people resent the notion of being a babysitter to a stochastic token machine, hastening their own cognitive decline. Some people resent paying rent to a handful of US companies, all coming directly out of the TESCREAL human extinction cult, to be able to write software. Some people resent the "worse is better" steady decline of software quality over the past two decades, now supercharged. Some people resent that the hegemonic computing ecosystem is entirely shaped by the logic of venture capital. Some people hate that the digital commons is walled off and sold back to us. Oh and I guess some people also don't like the thought of making coding several orders of magnitude more energy intensive during a climate emergency.
But sure, no, it's really because we mourn the loss of our hobby.
The point of "algorithmically driven social media" isn't to find what you want to see, it's to make you question what they don't want you to think and to affirm what they DO want you to think.
"All the objections to AI are aesthetic"
️
- boost the one guy in comments talking about K&R C as being for a "more civilized age" in the comments."Using AI in your tool chain is Russian Roulette"
️
- deboost speaker to everyone but zealots who will proceed to drown him in adhom.
