4 ms·

Yeah I just don't buy that it would somehow help AI companies for everyone to be existentially afraid of their technology. It seems much more reasonable to thi

• edbaskerville 5mo ago
  Does anyone have good estimates of what percent of real production code is currently being written by LLMs? (& presumably this is rather different for your typical SaaS backend vs. frontend vs. device drivers vs. kernel schedulers...)
  • mbesto 5mo ago
    By all companies? I'd say less than 10% of all LOC today are generated by LLMs.
    • scottyah 5mo ago
      Really? In my bubble of internet news it seems the sheer number of companies that have formed and shipped LLM code to production has already surpassed existing companies. I've personally shipped dozens of (mediocre) human months or years worth of code to "production", almost certainly more than I've ever done for companies I've worked at (to be fair I've been a lot more on the SRE side for a few years now).
  • SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
    Depends on your reference class. There's a lot of companies and teams where it's literally 100%, and I would be surprised if there were any top company where it's below 75%. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the industry-wide percentage were a lot lower, although I also have no idea how you'd measure that.
    • otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
      > I would be surprised if there were any top company where it's below 75% I would be surprised if there were any top company where it's above 5%. The slop Claude generates isn't going anywhere near production without being edited by hand.
      • SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
        Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "edited by hand"? It's definitely still common for human beings to review generated code and tell Claude "no you need to do it this way". But most developers at Google, Meta, etc. no longer open up an IDE and type in code themselves.
        • otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
          I don't give a bleep what the bleeps at Google and Meta are doing. (Judging by the quality of ""software"" they put out - probably nothing all day.) In reality it's extremely rare that AI generated code isn't combed through line-by-line and refactored. (For real software, that is, not VC scams like OpenClaw or litellm or whatever.)
• autoexec 5mo ago
  > It seems much more reasonable to think that they really believe the things they're saying It seems more reasonable to me to think that they know it's bullshit and it's just marketing. Not necessarily marketing to end users as much as investors. It's very hard to take "AGI in 3 years" seriously.
  • mghackerlady 5mo ago
    AGI in 3 years is literally not possible as it stands. Our current idea of "AI" as an LLM fundamentally will never be able to reach that goal without some absolutely massive changes
    • autoexec 5mo ago
      At least Dario Amodei kept the window short. When AGI fails to magically appear in 3 years he will be discredited and we can all agree that he's full of shit and treat everything he says accordingly. This is a huge improvement over the "just 10 years away" prophesying we usually get.
• alecbz 5mo ago
  I think if you just look at what people like e.g. Sam Altman are doing it's clear that they don't believe everything that they're saying regarding AI safety. > nearly 100% of code would be written with AI in 2026 I feel like this is kind of a meaningless metric. Or at least, it's very difficult to measure. There's a spectrum of "let AI write the code" from "don't ever even look at the code produced" to "carefully review all the output and have AI iterate on it". Also, it seems possible as time goes on people will _stop_ using AI to write code as much, or at least shift more to the right side of that spectrum, as we start to discover all kinds of problems caused by AI-authored code with little to no human oversight.
• roxolotl 5mo ago
  It helps with sales because they position it as “we can give you the power to end the world.” There’s plenty of people who want to wield that sort of power. It doesn’t have to be 4D chess. Maybe they are being genuine. But it is helping sales.
  • cyanydeez 5mo ago
    Isn't it more: "We can give you the power to eliminate the people in your organization you dont like" and expands into basically dismantling all government & business for the benefit of the guy with the largest wallet? It's hard to see as anything but a button anyone with enough money can press and suddenly replace the people that annoy them (first digitally then likely, into flesh).
  • DennisP 5mo ago
    They're not saying today's AI has that kind of power, and they're not saying future superintelligent AI will give you that power. They're saying it will take all power from you, and possibly end you. If this is some kind of twisted marketing, it's unprecedented in history. Oil companies don't brag about climate change. Tobacco companies don't talk about giving people cancer. If AI companies wanted to talk about how powerful their AI will be, they could easily brag about ending cancer, curing aging, or solving climate change. They're doing a bit of that, but also warning it might get out of control and kill us all. They're getting legislators riled up about things like limiting data centers. People saying this aren't just company CEOs. It's researchers who've been studying AI alignment for decades, writing peer reviewed papers and doing experiments. It's people like Geoffrey Hinton, who basically invented deep learning and quit his high-paying job at Google so he could talk freely about how dangerous this is. This idea that it's a marketing stunt is a giant pile of cope, because people don't want to believe that humanity could possibly be this stupid.
    • otabdeveloper4 5mo ago
      > If this is some kind of twisted marketing, it's unprecedented in history. They're marketing AI to investors, not to end-user plebs. This is a pump-and-dump scheme.
• b00ty4breakfast 5mo ago
  it pushes the idea that these programs are super amazing and powerful to people who are non-technical. It also allows them to control the narrative of how exactly AI is dangerous to society. Rather than worry about the energy consumption of all these new datacenters, they can redirect attention to some far-off concern about SHODAN taking over Citadel Station and turning the inhabitants into cyber-mutants or whatever.
• haritha-j 5mo ago
  When your statements directly influence millions of dollars in revenue, its always 4D chess. If Sam altman beleives half the stuff he's peddling, I'd be very shocked.
• goatlover 5mo ago
  I'd argue if they really believed AI was an existential threat, they would shut down research and encourage everyone else to halt R&D. But then again, the Cold War happened, even over the objections of physicists like Einstein & Oppenheimer.
• Terr_ 5mo ago
  > Yeah I just don't buy that it would somehow help AI companies for everyone to be existentially afraid of their technology. It makes more sense if one breaks that "everyone" into subgroups. A good first-pass split would be "investors" versus "everyone else." From their perspective: Rich Investor Alice rushing over with bags of money because of FOMO >>> Random Person Bob suffers anxiety reading the news. One can hone it a bit more by thinking about how it helps them gain access to politicians, media that's always willing to spread their quotes, and even just getting CEO Carol's name out there.
• rootusrootus 5mo ago
  > nearly 100% of code would be written with AI in 2026 HN is the only place I have heard it seriously suggested that anything like this is happening or likely to happen. We certainly get a lot of cheerleading here, my guess is that in the trenches the fraction is way lower.