cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/36071801
This author trieds hard to do a pragmatic view. He does not mention ethical or ecological concerns (which should matter far more and subject to legal regulation IMO).
Instead, he focuses on the quality topic. His thinking is that companies are doing now a kind of quality arbitrage: Companies can make low-quality code at far cheaper costs, and sellthe result still at human-made prices. Which will only work for so long, he thinks: Customers will demand lower prices. (Easy to imagine a quality downward spiral.)
Which invokes the question: What has happened that people accept lower and lower quality? Is new software nowadays still really useful?
You must log in or # to comment.
He has couple great points.
Hobby project coding is solved.
Anything else isn’t.I think he made it too long of an article and lost people 1/4th in. With current attention span it should be cut up into separate segments.
Hobby project coding is solved.
Not if you want to build something more complex than the usual todo manager or likewyse simple software in my experience.
And even in this case it output just something taken from examples around the internet, so it is not writing code, it is just better at finding the (hopefully) better examples.
It is. I don’t read garbage slop.
Sometimes, I think the “AI” industry has an interest to keep the debate as polarized as possible. Because this keeps people from taking a sober look and examine rationally and objectively what they promise, vs. what they deliver.
We have several public debates which followed a similar pattern, such as the debates around climate protection and clean energy. (And lo and behold! Now “AI” is the reason we can’t have climate protection!)
Or the “AI arms race” argument, which honestly just reminds me in the enthusiasm, propaganda, and delusion that happened at the outbreak of WWI. Yes, modern weapons got “better”. But that made war just more lunatic. And now, you can kill a building full of school children with an “AI mistake”. Military people must be gleeful.
