The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
-
@cjk @tante Honestly I'm not sure about the skill degradation. I think there is a very high chance this is the same “new technology will make the youth stupid" panic that we have seen for centuries with every new technology. Also I really would like to see a deep analysis how much AI is hurting the environment. I don't trust Sam Altmans numbers but I also buy the “every prompt is burning down a small forrest" hyperbole.
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante Yes, if I had Root Cause Analysis training - #BehavioralScience - in earlier education, I and more like me would've made more of a difference.
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante No truly Germany has managed to give us great software over the past decades without LLMS.
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante In my opinion, the problem is that most decision-makers don't understand the risks involved. When those in charge lack the necessary knowledge for software development, the empty promises of AI seem like an easy solution
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante
Is that running or ruining? -
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
Entropy is somebody else's problem - they'll be comfortable on their yacht. We can't expect sociopaths to care about others, else they wouldn't be sociopaths.
-
Right now we are seeing way more of the latter because most people haven't learned yet how to produce good AI code and because the bad code sticks out while the good code blends in. But I'm convinced your underlying assumption “AI code = shitty" isn't correct. (2/2)
@tante@343max @tante
Then, Max, you have no understanding of LLM/Gen AI, or maybe of specifying requirements, designing system (modules, APIs etc) and then writing the code test & debug. If it's any size of project you need a team & management.
There is also documentation.
Actually writing the code is the easiest bit & the only bit the current LLM/Gen AI does, and does badly as it relies on code scraped from elsewhere & statistical shuffling of fragments.
Can't work. It's a technological dead end. -
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante Well, well done for admitting that demonstrably, the dog can play the piano. Now we are just talking about how well it plays.
FWIW these LLMs have no need for being consistent with what happened in a previous context. The same LLM, in a new context, will usefully critique and find and fix flaws in what it itself did in the previous context.
The "slop" aspect of LLM output seems to come from just going with what one context produced blind, when it can iterate as, eg, QA manager.
-
-
@343max @tante
Then, Max, you have no understanding of LLM/Gen AI, or maybe of specifying requirements, designing system (modules, APIs etc) and then writing the code test & debug. If it's any size of project you need a team & management.
There is also documentation.
Actually writing the code is the easiest bit & the only bit the current LLM/Gen AI does, and does badly as it relies on code scraped from elsewhere & statistical shuffling of fragments.
Can't work. It's a technological dead end.@raymaccarthy @tante Oh the “someone disagrees with me so they must be stupid" argument! Amazing. Please go away now.
-
@raymaccarthy @tante @map AI can't create. You create, AI just implements it. I know it is hard to digest but this is everyday work for a lot of us now.
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
I mean, you can also "build a house" by using deck screws to connect some wet doug fir 2x4s into a "frame" and then staple on some drywall and siding and drape the whole thing in a plastic tarp.
You will die when it falls on you, but for a time, it was a "house".
-
@map exactly. In a way accepting responsibility for the code one puts in front of people is accepting the connected care duties towards these people.
-
@raymaccarthy @tante Oh the “someone disagrees with me so they must be stupid" argument! Amazing. Please go away now.
@343max @tante
I've designed & written SW for decades and done physical AI courses as well as studying it.
What's your qualification for your amazing claims Max?
Expert systems was AI in 1980s and relied on good design and curation of the knowledge of experts. It was too expensive to build and fragile.
I forecast the the idea of LLM 20+ years ago. Chatbots then had data encoded in the program (Eliza, ALICE etc). I suggested a statistical engine and using the Internet as data. A toy. -
@raymaccarthy @tante @map AI can't create. You create, AI just implements it. I know it is hard to digest but this is everyday work for a lot of us now.
-
@raymaccarthy @tante @map Ok, feel free to think whatever you want.
-
@343max @tante
I've designed & written SW for decades and done physical AI courses as well as studying it.
What's your qualification for your amazing claims Max?
Expert systems was AI in 1980s and relied on good design and curation of the knowledge of experts. It was too expensive to build and fragile.
I forecast the the idea of LLM 20+ years ago. Chatbots then had data encoded in the program (Eliza, ALICE etc). I suggested a statistical engine and using the Internet as data. A toy.@raymaccarthy You are absolutely right, I really shouldn’t trust my own day to day experience and the experience of all the people that I trust over your 20 year old predictions. We are all wrong, our eyes betrayed us, please help us see! Oh please!
-
@343max @tante
I've designed & written SW for decades and done physical AI courses as well as studying it.
What's your qualification for your amazing claims Max?
Expert systems was AI in 1980s and relied on good design and curation of the knowledge of experts. It was too expensive to build and fragile.
I forecast the the idea of LLM 20+ years ago. Chatbots then had data encoded in the program (Eliza, ALICE etc). I suggested a statistical engine and using the Internet as data. A toy.@raymaccarthy @343max @tante AI has, in theory, the same potential as a calculator. It can make tasks easier, but it actually does imply skill degradation in a certain field. Solving n-th grade differential equations back in Blaise Pascals time was frustrating. So since Schickard, automating such tasks helped humanity spend their time on the bigger picture instead of grinding through repetitive tasks. New technologies always shifted human skills to a new domain.
-
The question is not whether you can create software using LLMs - you can - most software is just boring CRUD shit.
But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.It's not "can 'AI's create software" but "are we willing to accept worse software running more and more of our lives?"
@tante The best engineers I know just became more ambitious, and so should all of us.
I'll keep repeating this, there's tonnes of proprietary binary blobs in all of our tech. You can shout from the rooftops about how much you love your /e/OS phone, if your phone modem relies on a proprietary driver, it's pretty much worthless as a "resistance against big tech". European digital sovereignty is equally worthless.
LLMs are good at staring at hexdumps, humans aren't. Use their advantage to build actually open tech.
> But you do pay a hefty price: In lowering quality (security issues, less maintainable), in skill decay in the people "guiding" the stochastic parrots, etc.
Skill issue, idk what more to say. I don't find it any different to managing juniors and reviewing their PRs. Bad code is bad code.
-
Here's the thing: I believe that you deserve to have access to high quality products and services. You deserve to use products and services that are safe, secure, well-designed and not destroying the ecological, informational or social environment.
+1
> "destroying the ecological, informational or social environment"
As good as this generated code may be, it remains unacceptable because of that. And that should be the ultimate reason (as the code quality may rise, but at the cost of more destruction)
