Elden Ring and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead”. That’s… interesting. Elden Ring is very self serious, so I don’t know what happens when you add in semi self aware satire.

No shit.

One of the problems is all the people who were fucking wrong don’t suffer any lasting consequences. They will be listened to again.

Good. The penalty should be enough that it’s not something you can just shrug off. Scale it with wealth. Make repeat offenses lead to the license being revoked. Mandatory community service.

Many people are worse than toddlers and their moral framework doesn’t go past “I shouldn’t do that because I’ll be punished”

The people pushing these AI chatbots should be liable. Make them do farm work. Reconnect them with the earth.

The only thing that we can say for sure is that the companies benefit from shrinkflation in some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

Nitpick, even though I agree with you: companies believe they will benefit. We can’t rule out how fucking stupid a lot of management types are. Like whatever company fired people for AI and then had to retire them, plus eat the lost potential from fucking around with AI for months.

And even when the individuals aren’t stupid, the incentives are fucked. Google kills products because of internal fighting for promotions and recognition, not anything that’s good for users or the companies.

Management types don’t understand how things work, so they make bizarre decisions

Mayor Greg Bozzo said other big industrial projects have been approved in the same manner over the years, but didn’t cause any uproar.

“It didn’t bother them that a food-distribution center came to Gilroy without their engagement, but now it bothers them that a data center is coming to Gilroy without them having the possibility of engagement,” Bozzo said.

Nomitive determinism: he is a real fucking bozo. All these fucks need to be gone.

Again, we’re circling the question “why learn anything?” I seen to have as an assumption that it’s worth it for its own sake more often than you do.

Why then would I have done this manually in a week when the AI did it better in an hour and $5?

Some reasons may include

• once you have the skills, it won’t take a week
• once you have the skills, you learn them. They’re yours, not rented
• you are better able to make changes to it
• you can be much more confident it doesn’t have any horrible issues like exposing keys in plain text
• less odds of other issues, like redundant or strange code

Some of this comes down to “why bother learning anything?”

I don’t know what your dashboard does. I made a simple display at an old job that showed some stats about new user signups. It took like an hour or two, and I’d never used the particular front end library before.

Edit: lines of code is a poor metric* but even so 20k seems like a lot

*For example, the difference between

function add(a, b) { 
  return a + b;
}

and

const add = (a,b) => a + b

How much web development experience do you personally have? Like, from before AI tooling?

Once your website is more complicated than a static marketing site, I don’t think AI is going to do it better. Some of the problems, like slopsquatting might be around for a long time. Possibly forever.

And the code itself is incapable of causing issues, it’s just markdown/css.

…what?

However even for high-quality code, if you look at benchmarks the top models produce higher quality code than the majority of devs.

Doing the wrong thing faster is not an improvement.

At least AI has the decency to include comments.

From what I’ve seen of AI comments, it’s not really helpful. It’s illusionionary confidence.

As for losing understanding of our code, I agree but I suppose it’s the price to pay for productivity.

That’s very expensive technical debt, or a massive de-skilling of labor.

Do you own a business? If you don’t, why would you dig your own grave here?

If your AI use is counter productive, then it’s probably either because the scenario doesn’t benefit from AI or because you’re using it wrong.

It’s harder to review code than to write it. Humans are kind of of lazy, and when we see code that looks generally correct we skim. We lose focus.

So if someone uses AI to generate a lot of code, it’s hard to review. If we just trust it, we lose knowledge of how our system works. If we spend the time reviewing it, that’s harder than just doing it ourselves. This is true at any scale, but the more you use it the worse it gets.

Maybe you consider using AI for code generation “using it wrong”. If so, please tell it to management at my job who are frothing at the mouth over the idea.

If you disagree that humans don’t notice problems, did you see the mistake I added in this post? Maybe you did! But most people wouldn’t.

Even if that wasn’t a problem, de-skilling is definitely a problem long term. If the AI did produce flawless code, after a few months of using it you’d start losing the ability to code yourself. Counter productive. Unless you’re management, and don’t care about your laborers.

Vaguely insulting to factory workers, first.

Second, much of the AI use is counter productive. Some of it is metrics chasing.

I really appreciate written words over video.

That post made me angry at how stupid the built environment is in most places.

What an incredibly idiotic thing to do! Both of them thought it was okay to trust the lie machine with their lives! Darwin award candidates.

I find the people who are worst at thinking use AI the most.

You don’t need to bring car usage to zero. It’s a win to bring it down.

Maybe let local people decide what’s right for them instead of making blanket proclamations for everyone and every place?

Local, non-expert, people are famously wrong. You’d have everything paved over for more parking if you listened to them.

Without jeopardizing your academics, prioritize rare things.

TV and video games will always be there. Your friend asking you to come play tennis won’t. Go play tennis even if you don’t think you’ll love it.

I think it would be helpful for more than just bots. Right now every upvote is equal, but I probably personally value the upvotes of people I like more. You might see a 5 star review online, but if four of your friends all say it sucks that counts for more.

A large part of code review has been preventing people from doing stupid shit. AI is making stupid shit worse. It’s not defects, it’s “adding a whole micro service to get the user name from the ID, when the name is already in the metadata” or whatever that recent meme was.

Or that time a guy wrote a whole DSL instead of using the existing framework. Technically impressive, but adds a huge burden.

I’ve mentioned this before in other context, but I feel like there’s value in potentially looking at who upvotes who, and following that graph.

If you have like a closed circle all upvoting each other, but everyone outside the circle downvotes, that might be useful information.