upvote

points

by cinntaile14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sdevonoes13 hours ago|
next
[-]
Not every change is good, and sometimes we realise too late
reply
upvoteby cinntaile12 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
What is it that worries you about the change that is happening?
reply
upvoteby drzaiusx112 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
For me it's always the fear of AI regurgitating something legally problematic directly from its training set: unintentionally adding copyright and licensing issues from those even with no intentions of doing so.

Obviously these issues existed before AI, but they required active deception before. Regurgitating others people's code just becomes the norm now.

reply
upvoteby cjfd7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
All kinds of worries are possible. (1) It turns out that all this AI generated stuff is full of bugs and we go back to traditional software development, creating a giant disinvestment and economic downturn. (2) sofware quality going way down. we cannot produce reliable programs anymore. (3) massive energy use makes it impossible to use sustainable energy sources and we wreck the environment every more than we are currently doing. (4) AIs are in the hands of a few big companies that abuse their power. (5) AI becomes smarter than humans and decides that humans are outdated and kills all of us.

It obviously depends on how powerful AI is going to become. These scenarios are mutually exclusive because some assume that AI is actually not very powerful and some assume that it is very powerful. I think one of these things happening is not at all unlikely.

reply
upvoteby rowyourboat2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
1 and 2 are really only an issue if you vibe code. There's no reason to expect properly reviewed AI assisted code to be any worse than human written code. In fact, in my experience, using LLMs to do a code review is a great asset - of used in addition to human review
reply
upvoteby intended6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
People have measurably lower levels of ownership and understanding of AI generated code. The people using GenAI reap a major time and cognitive effort savings, but the task of verification is shifted to the maintainer.

In essence, we get the output without the matching mental structures being developed in humans.

This is great if you have nothing left to learn, its not that great if you are a newbie, or have low confidence in your skill.

> LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.

> https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

> https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...

reply
upvoteby xxpor5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
While I agree with this intuitively, I also just can't get past the argument that people said the same thing when we switched from everyone using ASM to C/Fortran etc.
reply
upvoteby jacquesm26 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
There is a massive difference in outright transformation of something you created yourself vs a collage of snippets + some sauce based on stuff you did not write yourself. If all you did to use your AI was to train it exclusively on your own work product create during your lifetime I would have absolutely no problem with it, in fact in that case I would love to see copyright extended to the author.

But in the present case the authorship is just removed by shredding the library and then piecing back together the sentences. The fact that under some circumstances AIs will happily reproduce code that was in the training data is proof positive they are to some degree lossy compressors. The more generic something is ("for (i=0;i<MAXVAL;i++) {") the lower the claim for copyright infringement. But higher level constructs past a couple of lines that are unique in the training set that are reproduced in the output modulo some name changes and/or language changes should count as automatic transformation (and hence infringing or creating a derivative work).

reply
upvoteby rowyourboat2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> The people using GenAI reap a major time and cognitive effort savings, but the task of verification is shifted to the maintainer.

The people using GenAI should be the ones doing the verification. The maintainer's job should not meaningfully change (other than the maintainer using AI to review on incoming code, of course).

Why does everyone who hears "AI code" automatically think "vibe-coded"?

reply
upvoteby goatlover13 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.
reply
upvoteby cinntaile13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo.

People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it will affect anything. The genie is out of the bottle, AI is here to stay. You either adapt or you will slowly wither away.

reply
upvoteby dwedge11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It reminds me of something I read on mastodon: "genie doesn't go back in the bottle say AI promoters while the industry spends a trillion dollars a year to try to keep the genie out of the bottle"
reply
upvoteby cinntaile11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Do you think the genie will go back in the bottle and why?
reply
upvoteby matheusmoreira5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's certainly possible. All that is required is for AIs to become more expensive than humans. Developing projects on a $100 Claude Code subscription is a lot of fun. I bet people would simply go back to hiring human developers if that subscription cost $10,000 instead.
reply
upvoteby gnz1111 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Adapting implies you are still a part of the environment though. AI is on a trajectory to replace you and take you out of the environment.
reply
upvoteby bdangubic10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
AI is on a trajectory to replace people who do not effectively use AI with people that do
reply
upvoteby gnz119 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That is the bait and switch. The end goal is that you are out of the equation. Your perceived effectiveness at using AI as an exchange of labor diminishes over time to the point that you become irrelevant.
reply
upvoteby brabel7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Who has that end goal?? Who is going to direct the AI if only the CEO is left in the organization? The CEO will never actually do it , and will always need someone who can and will do it. I just can’t see a grand plan to take humans out of the equation entirely.
reply
upvoteby bdangubic7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
that most definitely is a plan, make no mistake about it. but as mike tyson famously said, “every has a plan until they get punched in a mouth” :)
reply
upvoteby bdangubic7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
this is certainly a possibility but human beings and societies as a whole adapt
reply
upvoteby LtWorf10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force?

You missed the whole arab spring thing?

reply
upvoteby cinntaile10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you selectively read one sentence of my comment, you risk missing the forest for the trees. I don't have any particular knowledge on the arab spring so I won't comment on that but I quite clearly said that technology has good and bad aspects to it.
reply
upvoteby wafflemaker10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Is it meant as sarcasm?
reply
upvoteby contraposit13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
This is like blaming a knife as being a killer weapon. Social media is inherently good if owners of the platforms allow for good interactions to take place. But given the mismatch between incentives alignment, we don't have nice things.
reply
upvoteby dwedge11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Social media is good if owners allow for good is an example of the logical fallacy "begging the question"
reply
upvoteby contraposit6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Also blaming the tool for the crime is some sort of fallacy. I don't know name you can ask AI.
reply