6 ms·

I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit, but the only thing that would allow this to happen are systems and incentive structur

I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit, but the only thing that would allow this to happen are systems and incentive structures that allow that to happen. A manager's job is to increase revenue and cut costs, that's how they get their job, how they keep their job, and how they are promoted. People very rarely get free benefits outside the range of what the incentive structures they exist in allow them to.

ozgrakkurt 1y ago
And people don’t like this. Something being logical doesn’t mean people have to accept it. Also AI has been basically useless every time I tried it except converting some struct definitions across languages or similar tasks, it seems very unlikely that it would boost productivity by more than 10% let alone 400%.
- atleastoptimal 1y ago
  What AI coding tools/models have you been using?
  - spc476 1y ago
    Let me guess ... they're holding it wrong, and the model they're using is older than 20 minutes.
    - atleastoptimal 1y ago
      You’re assuming how i would respond before i even respond. Please allow inquiries to happen naturally without polluting the thread with meritless cynicism.
      - jcranmer 1y ago
        With all due respect, with a response like "What AI coding tools/models have you been using?" to a complaint that AI tools just don't seem to be effective, what difference does a reply to that even make? If your experience makes you believe that certain tools are particularly good--or particularly bad--for the tasks at hand, you can just volunteer those specifics. FWIW, my own experiences with AI have ranged from mediocre to downright abysmal. And, no, I don't know which models the tools were using. I'm rather annoyed that it seems to be impossible to express a negative opinion about the value of AI without having to have a thoroughly documented experiment that inevitably invites the response that obviously some parameter was chosen incorrectly, while the people claiming how good it is get to be all offended when someone asks them to maybe show their work a little bit.
        atleastoptimal 1y ago
        Some people complain about AI but are using the free version of ChatGPT. Others are using the best models without a middleman system but still see faults, and I think it’s valuable to inquire about which domains they see no value in AI from. There are too many people saying “I tried AI and it didn’t work at all” without clarifying what models, what tools, what they asked it to do, etc. Without that context it’s hard to gauge the value of any value judgement on AI. It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. Of course its more difficult to provide specifics than just say it was good or bad, but there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how.
        jcranmer 1y ago
        > It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. That's an interesting comparison. That kind of statement can be reasonably inferred to be made by someone just learning to drive who doesn't like the experience of driving. And if I were a motorhead trying to convert that person to like driving, my first questions wouldn't be those questions, trying to interrogate them on their exact scenario to invalidate their results, but instead to question what aspect of driving they don't like to see if I could work out a fix for them that would meaningfully change their experience (and not being a motorhead, the only thing I can think of is maybe automatic versus manual transmission). > there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how. Also, do remember that this holds true when you s/bad/good/g.
        fragmede 1y ago
        We're still in the early days of LLMs. ChatGPT was only three years ago. The difference it makes is that without details, we don't know if someone's opinion is still relevant, because of how fast things have moved since the original GPT-3 release of ChatGPT. If someone half-assed an attempt to use the tools a year ago, and hasn't touched them since, and is going around still commenting about the number of R's in strawberry, then we can just ignore them and move on because they're just being loudmouths who need everyone else to know they don't like AI. If someone makes an honest attempt, and there's some shortcoming, then that can be noted, and then the next version coming out of the AI companies can be improved. But if all we have to go on is "I used it and it sucked" or "I used it and it was great", like, okay, good for you?
      - hackable_sand 1y ago
        People are also tired of rolling their eyes
UncleMeat 1y ago
> I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit And if they don't, then you'd understand the anger surely. You can't say "well obviously everybody should benefit" and then also scold the people who are mad that everybody isn't benefiting.
- atleastoptimal 1y ago
  i’m not scolding anyone who is mad that not everyone is benefitting
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    What are you doing then?
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    I mean you certainly fooled us all in that front

ozgrakkurt 1y ago

And people don’t like this. Something being logical doesn’t mean people have to accept it. Also AI has been basically useless every time I tried it except converting some struct definitions across languages or similar tasks, it seems very unlikely that it would boost productivity by more than 10% let alone 400%.

atleastoptimal 1y ago
What AI coding tools/models have you been using?
- spc476 1y ago
  Let me guess ... they're holding it wrong, and the model they're using is older than 20 minutes.
  - atleastoptimal 1y ago
    You’re assuming how i would respond before i even respond. Please allow inquiries to happen naturally without polluting the thread with meritless cynicism.
    - jcranmer 1y ago
      With all due respect, with a response like "What AI coding tools/models have you been using?" to a complaint that AI tools just don't seem to be effective, what difference does a reply to that even make? If your experience makes you believe that certain tools are particularly good--or particularly bad--for the tasks at hand, you can just volunteer those specifics. FWIW, my own experiences with AI have ranged from mediocre to downright abysmal. And, no, I don't know which models the tools were using. I'm rather annoyed that it seems to be impossible to express a negative opinion about the value of AI without having to have a thoroughly documented experiment that inevitably invites the response that obviously some parameter was chosen incorrectly, while the people claiming how good it is get to be all offended when someone asks them to maybe show their work a little bit.
      - atleastoptimal 1y ago
        Some people complain about AI but are using the free version of ChatGPT. Others are using the best models without a middleman system but still see faults, and I think it’s valuable to inquire about which domains they see no value in AI from. There are too many people saying “I tried AI and it didn’t work at all” without clarifying what models, what tools, what they asked it to do, etc. Without that context it’s hard to gauge the value of any value judgement on AI. It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. Of course its more difficult to provide specifics than just say it was good or bad, but there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how.
        jcranmer 1y ago
        > It’s like saying “I drove a car and it was horrible, cars suck” without clarifying what car, the age, the make, how much experience that person had driving, etc. That's an interesting comparison. That kind of statement can be reasonably inferred to be made by someone just learning to drive who doesn't like the experience of driving. And if I were a motorhead trying to convert that person to like driving, my first questions wouldn't be those questions, trying to interrogate them on their exact scenario to invalidate their results, but instead to question what aspect of driving they don't like to see if I could work out a fix for them that would meaningfully change their experience (and not being a motorhead, the only thing I can think of is maybe automatic versus manual transmission). > there is little value in claims that AI is altogether bad when you don’t offer any details about what it is specifically bad at and how. Also, do remember that this holds true when you s/bad/good/g.
      - fragmede 1y ago
        We're still in the early days of LLMs. ChatGPT was only three years ago. The difference it makes is that without details, we don't know if someone's opinion is still relevant, because of how fast things have moved since the original GPT-3 release of ChatGPT. If someone half-assed an attempt to use the tools a year ago, and hasn't touched them since, and is going around still commenting about the number of R's in strawberry, then we can just ignore them and move on because they're just being loudmouths who need everyone else to know they don't like AI. If someone makes an honest attempt, and there's some shortcoming, then that can be noted, and then the next version coming out of the AI companies can be improved. But if all we have to go on is "I used it and it sucked" or "I used it and it was great", like, okay, good for you?
    - hackable_sand 1y ago
      People are also tired of rolling their eyes

UncleMeat 1y ago

> I agree that if there are productivity gains that everyone should benefit And if they don't, then you'd understand the anger surely. You can't say "well obviously everybody should benefit" and then also scold the people who are mad that everybody isn't benefiting.

atleastoptimal 1y ago
i’m not scolding anyone who is mad that not everyone is benefitting
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  What are you doing then?
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  I mean you certainly fooled us all in that front