"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
My bosses hauled me into a meeting because I'm "too negative" about AI. I'm also a web developer, like you. Sometimes, when your boss is a clueless freak who has become obsessed with a shiny new toy, there's no way out. I use it as sparingly and sarcastically as possible, but they still tell me to use it most weeks.
Sorry I have no advice for you! But I do feel your pain lol
Sorry, I don't have anything off hand. I know there has been some stories by research groups about how it's measurably increasing security issues in codebases, but I don't have any links.
You might also want to ask in the pinned weekly thread on !techtakes@awful.systems as they seem to be more active than this comm. It's about making fun of all the "techbro takes" online, but I've seen people ask for similar help in the weekly thread and get assistance before.
Part of the problem is that most companies aren't publicly sharing failure stories for anything, let alone failures of the latest hype thing.
You might be able to find some stories on the more "greybeard" oriented tech news sites like the register as well.
Thing is, it is useful for juniors, except when they fuck up, or when they need to have learned something they're empty of any skill. There is the security issue, the code maintenance issue.. You can halve the lifespan of the codebase because it will bloat up fast. No models follows best practices yet. If you make Web apps they will eventually be hackable in several unknown ways were nobody can even find the issue because nobody wrote it so it is up to a security expert to sift through kilograms of generated code - not humanoid code and find the exploit. A hacker (or just a normal user even) can find a new opening in a fraction of that time. But, I assume you want to audit all code commits. So this is what your new profession is, and when it's not even in the correct ballpark, you have to prod it like a cowboy. It's demeaning even haha
it is useful for juniors
[citation needed]
I would argue that for juniors in particular AI is dangerous because they lack the mental tools necessary to spot the hallucinations and thus bad information and bad work will be amplified, not ameliorated.
But of course people who are actually competent at their jobs don't need the "help" that AI offers.
It's one of those conundrums: dangerous for half, useless for the other half. LET'S PUMP IN BILLIONS!
Well, it just is. It's like having your own tutor that you suspect suffer from mythomania. I'm not talking about letting it do the job or auto completing. The student has to be smart about it. The citation is real life, you know if you use it once that it can be helpful for someone looking to learn
I have tried using hallucinating digital parrots (note the plural) for months (note the plural).
They are dangerous, not useful. If you find them useful you're missing something and THAT'S where the danger lies.
Nope, they help me to look up things it works well
🤷♀️ If you insist.
But you're wrong. You're just atrophying your ability to think in exchange for hallucinations. Still, you be you.
I'm not wrong, it helps me look up things. Looking it up in a textbook just because of a damaged ego thinks they always hallucinate would be fully idiotic
Yes, you are really.
It's not correct. I get more thinking from not having to look up information. Thanks for trying, it was not that fun but may be educational for some people
I get more thinking from not having to look up information.
Research says otherwise, but hey, what do they know? They looked up information instead of asking an AI. Obviously they did less thinking!
🤣
They do not say that. But you stay in your triggered whine mode forever if you want to. Looking x up in a book vs asking a search is extremely costly and not at all what they researched.
Yes, actually, they do. It took me literally SECONDS to find this:
And that wasn't even the one I was looking for. The one I was looking for I found about a minute later:
I guess you should have asked ChatGPT to find that for you.
Seems like none of these refer to information lookup services but to generative ai
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE!
Stop playing fucking coy. FUCKING NAME your "information lookup services" that are AI powered but not LLMs.
(Hint: they're probably LLMs under the covers, and thus have all the problems that said papers are referencing. But you already know that and are just desperately clinging to the fictitious world you inhabit where "AI", as it is commonly understood to refer to today, is a good thing.)
Compassionate fucking BUDDHA are your kind fucking wearisome to deal with!
So name it. Or shut the fuck up.
I use Google search, gemini, and local llms of various models. I don't get why you are so intensely angry and assuming I am an ai bro? Are you aware where we are are discussing this?
Seems like none of these refer to information lookup services but to generative ai
I use Google search, gemini, and local llms of various models.
THIS is why I'm so fucking pissed at people like you.
You can't even keep your stories straight from one post to another. You hallucinate more than all the LLMs of the world put together.
So, I put up my receipts for the claim that this shit is making you weaker. As far as I'm concerned, especially with your little instant-contradiction thing here, that pretty much establishes that you're full of shit.
...and assuming I am an ai bro...
Oh, my. Someone coming to "Fuck AI" and defending AI for absurd amounts of time, who ignores evidence provided to counter his claims about the benefits of AI ... why would anybody identify this as an aibrodude?
It's a mystery.
But it's not one that's going to be solved with any more of my fucking time.
Alternatively, maybe you should try giving different AI systems your standard interview questions and see how they do? I doubt any of them would pass, unless the questions simple. Even if they do as good as a human, using them requires a second human, so they are still using up the same amount of engineering hours as hiring a new employee.