Programming

20881 readers

92 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

UlrikHD@programming.dev

Trusting your own judgement on 'AI' is a huge risk (www.baldurbjarnason.com)

submitted 4 days ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OC below by @HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org

What called my attention is that assessments of AI are becoming polarized and somewhat a matter of belief.

Some people firmly believe LLMs are helpful. But programming is a logical task and LLMs can't think - only generate statistically plausible patterns.

The author of the article explains that this creates the same psychological hazards like astrology or tarot cards, psychological traps that have been exploited by psychics for centuries - and even very intelligent people can fall prey to these.

Finally what should cause alarm is that on top that LLMs can't think, but people behave as if they do, there is no objective scientifically sound examination whether AI models can create any working software faster. Given that there are multi-billion dollar investments, and there was more than enough time to carry through controlled experiments, this should raise loud alarm bells.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Amen

And to add that smart people fall for dumb biases, we just need to look at the object oriented mania of the 2000s to late 2010s to see us shoehorn in one paradigm into everything without critically considering whether it made sense over other models.

Can an LLM do everything I need yet? No.

But is a stochastic parrot good enough to help me complete a function and help me restructure code? Yes definitely.

Claude is good enough for so much of the low value code I write that is actually a useful tool. I have to review the code but it’s useable.

I use AI search to lookup functions that I don’t need detailed docs for, or to help me debug arcane library specific errors (just had one earlier today where in polars the list and array types are very much not interchangeable and the explode method was failing).

I still read the docs on things that are critical, and I write the critical paths and dictate structure and understand the problem im solving well.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 4 points 3 days ago

It's really amazing the number of people trying to argue that LLMs are useless, while simultaneously so many people are using them successfully. Makes me wonder if they've even tried them.