3 ms·

"How can we solve this at a more fundamental level?" Stop using AI for coding. Period...there is no other solution. You can't make it work, nobody else can e

"How can we solve this at a more fundamental level?" Stop using AI for coding. Period...there is no other solution. You can't make it work, nobody else can either. Without determinism, the entire process is useless. We need to stop trying to act like we all know that this isn't true. We have given it a chance, it failed, time to move on to something else no matter how much the VCs and execs don't want to. Those that do move on have a chance, the others have no future in software.

jdw64 6mo ago
I agree with what you are saying, but if I cannot get work, I may literally have nothing to eat tomorrow. So while I agree with your point, it does not feel like a practical answer for my situation. For someone who is already well known and has enough reputation, refusing to use AI may be a matter of principle. But I am dealing with survival. I do not think your answer is bad. But because this is a survival problem, it is difficult for me to risk everything on principle. In other words, I know that your answer may be the morally correct one. If everyone boycotted this, perhaps it would not be adopted so aggressively. But I cannot do that. What I need is a way to use AI while degrading my own ability as little as possible, and while still preserving my skills. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your answer is too idealistic for someone in my position.
- hunterpayne 6mo ago
  I'm not being idealistic. I'm being very practical. You have the survival problem exactly backwards. Continuing to use it, that's the real danger in a practical sense. That only leads one direction and that direction isn't in your best interest.
Saline9515 6mo ago
The issue is that you will end up without a job if the trend continues. It's similar to many cases of technical innovation - you can still have a few workers who do handcrafted works, but most of them have to use the machines, that may produce work of inferior quality but at much higher speed. The market realigns, and unless you handwrite the highest possible quality at a quick pace, you won't be competitive with the vibe-coders who can fix a hundred issues a month. It was the same with gps-assisted driving, now most people can't orient themselves autonomously. Worse, there are no roadsigns with directions installed, meaning that you are stuck with using the GPS.
- hunterpayne 6mo ago
  "unless you handwrite the highest possible quality at a quick pace" That's exactly what I do. I know I am lucky to be gifted in this skillset. But that's not a good reason to excuse people destroying the market for everyone.
  - Saline9515 6mo ago
    I mean, why wouldn't they? Software developers are very often automating things, in order to reduce the amount of workforce, or the skill needed for economic activities. Would you refuse to work on a navigation app such as Waze, since it allows everyone to work with platforms as Uber and pushes traditional taxis out of the market?

jdw64 6mo ago

I agree with what you are saying, but if I cannot get work, I may literally have nothing to eat tomorrow. So while I agree with your point, it does not feel like a practical answer for my situation. For someone who is already well known and has enough reputation, refusing to use AI may be a matter of principle. But I am dealing with survival. I do not think your answer is bad. But because this is a survival problem, it is difficult for me to risk everything on principle. In other words, I know that your answer may be the morally correct one. If everyone boycotted this, perhaps it would not be adopted so aggressively. But I cannot do that. What I need is a way to use AI while degrading my own ability as little as possible, and while still preserving my skills. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your answer is too idealistic for someone in my position.

hunterpayne 6mo ago
I'm not being idealistic. I'm being very practical. You have the survival problem exactly backwards. Continuing to use it, that's the real danger in a practical sense. That only leads one direction and that direction isn't in your best interest.

Saline9515 6mo ago

The issue is that you will end up without a job if the trend continues. It's similar to many cases of technical innovation - you can still have a few workers who do handcrafted works, but most of them have to use the machines, that may produce work of inferior quality but at much higher speed. The market realigns, and unless you handwrite the highest possible quality at a quick pace, you won't be competitive with the vibe-coders who can fix a hundred issues a month. It was the same with gps-assisted driving, now most people can't orient themselves autonomously. Worse, there are no roadsigns with directions installed, meaning that you are stuck with using the GPS.

hunterpayne 6mo ago
"unless you handwrite the highest possible quality at a quick pace" That's exactly what I do. I know I am lucky to be gifted in this skillset. But that's not a good reason to excuse people destroying the market for everyone.
- Saline9515 6mo ago
  I mean, why wouldn't they? Software developers are very often automating things, in order to reduce the amount of workforce, or the skill needed for economic activities. Would you refuse to work on a navigation app such as Waze, since it allows everyone to work with platforms as Uber and pushes traditional taxis out of the market?