6 ms·

Every word of this seems objectively false. AI is more than capable of handling the details. I have generated countless tools for myself without needing to know

by cheevly 2mo ago

Every word of this seems objectively false. AI is more than capable of handling the details. I have generated countless tools for myself without needing to know or care about the details.

RealityVoid 2mo ago
Tools? Yes. Reliable foundations? Eh, mostly not. Maybe I'm holding it wrong, but I'm not impressed. Not in the least because in order to get a good system you must have a good image of the system in your head. And if AI builds the system, how will you ever get that system in your head?
- bonoboTP 2mo ago
  How would you do it if you hired an employee in your company to do it? You'd talk to the employee and read the docs they write. Same here.
  - RealityVoid 2mo ago
    When an employee writes a system, the employee owns the system. When an AI writes a system for you, YOU own the system.
    - bonoboTP 2mo ago
      Owns? What a strange word to use. I doubt they own it in the sense that the profits of it go to their bank account. Use a better word and things will be clearer.
      - RealityVoid 2mo ago
        Yes, owns. Ownership as in accountability, stewardship and care. But I think you already got this from my post and if we're fighting about semantics, there's no constructive discussion to be had.
        bonoboTP 2mo ago
        Accountability - yes, you can fire a human. But you can also fire the AI, by switching to a different model or switching back to manual coding. The rest just depends on having a strong enough model.
slopinthebag 2mo ago
It’s always tools tho, and AI tools especially. Why not anything else?
- theshrike79 2mo ago
  Because creating bespoke deterministic tools with AI is an excellent use-case for it. Even if the AI goes away or is enshittified, the tool still remains. And you get to do less of the boring shit because the tool does it for you. Or you replace some montly cost application you use maybe 10% of with a custom thing and save money each mont.
jwpapi 2mo ago
I think the author means ecomonically valuable not valuable to you.
hollowturtle 2mo ago
It doesn't handle anything, he reproduce statistical patterns. If it seems it cares about the details it's because he's been trained to regurgitate stuff. Another thing is being expert in something and being able to prompt the clanker, and those who are, usually underestimate how much their knowledge is steering the machine in the right direction
Brian_K_White 2mo ago
Everyone feels like they are now the ceo of their own empire of ai flunkies who do the actual work guided by their above-all-that vision, and they luuuuuuv that. But useless ceos generate bad output just like useless direct coders. It's like everyone is adopting the once only-for-the-rich mindset where artisan is actually a derogatory term. Where Micheal Angelo is the same as the cow stall poop shoveler, because they actually do something directly themselves.
flogistonical 2mo ago
The pro argument is always quantity based, yet we never get to see the actual gain in quality. It's always "I'm doing SO MUCH more". Never "I'm doing better, with less effort." It's also what we see in the wild. There are so many things going on, so many news about "AI". Are things getting better in any meaningful way? Why are we getting so much from "AI" yet things keep getting worse? The only real, objective and verifiable gain has been the stock price of a handful of companies, most of them heavily into infrastructure and manufacturing hardware. Seems like a pretty clear pattern. There's so much output, but everything is worse. And the only argument we hear for why this is actually a good thing is just how much more output there is. Hmmm
- sedawkgrep 2mo ago
  > The pro argument is always quantity based, yet we never get to see the actual gain in quality. It's always "I'm doing SO MUCH more". Never "I'm doing better, with less effort." For me, it's "I can do this now; yesterday I could not." I am not a developer - I am a hack with some experience in a smattering of languages who hits very real obstacles very quickly. AI has allowed me to overcome those obstacles and build things that literally I could not do before. Yesterday I could not differentiate quake 3 matches within a single demo file. Today I can split them into separate files and have the server stream them to me so I can watch them on demand.
  - everforward 2mo ago
    It’s basically the same thing as AI generated art, whichever side of that you fall on. I do IT, I can’t make any kind of art to save my own life. The art the AI generates is neat to me because I get to feel in control of making something beyond my own skills. The flip side is equally true, though. The things I make are derivative, and not particularly neat to other people (and actively irritate actual artists). AI software is a lot like that. I’m happy people who aren’t software engineers can make their own thing and be totally in control of that. I’ve also yet to see much AI software that blows existing stuff out of the water. Most of is derivative of something that already exists, if not an outright clone with a slightly different emphasis (think Jira but for a very specific workflow).
hangrybear666 2mo ago
As long as these tools remain for your personal use there is nothing wrong with that. The moment other people rely on them however, it would become reckless oversight to operate in that way.

by cheevly 2mo ago

Every word of this seems objectively false. AI is more than capable of handling the details. I have generated countless tools for myself without needing to know or care about the details.

RealityVoid 2mo ago

Tools? Yes. Reliable foundations? Eh, mostly not. Maybe I'm holding it wrong, but I'm not impressed. Not in the least because in order to get a good system you must have a good image of the system in your head. And if AI builds the system, how will you ever get that system in your head?

bonoboTP 2mo ago
How would you do it if you hired an employee in your company to do it? You'd talk to the employee and read the docs they write. Same here.
- RealityVoid 2mo ago
  When an employee writes a system, the employee owns the system. When an AI writes a system for you, YOU own the system.
  - bonoboTP 2mo ago
    Owns? What a strange word to use. I doubt they own it in the sense that the profits of it go to their bank account. Use a better word and things will be clearer.
    - RealityVoid 2mo ago
      Yes, owns. Ownership as in accountability, stewardship and care. But I think you already got this from my post and if we're fighting about semantics, there's no constructive discussion to be had.
      - bonoboTP 2mo ago
        Accountability - yes, you can fire a human. But you can also fire the AI, by switching to a different model or switching back to manual coding. The rest just depends on having a strong enough model.

slopinthebag 2mo ago

It’s always tools tho, and AI tools especially. Why not anything else?

theshrike79 2mo ago
Because creating bespoke deterministic tools with AI is an excellent use-case for it. Even if the AI goes away or is enshittified, the tool still remains. And you get to do less of the boring shit because the tool does it for you. Or you replace some montly cost application you use maybe 10% of with a custom thing and save money each mont.

jwpapi 2mo ago

I think the author means ecomonically valuable not valuable to you.

hollowturtle 2mo ago

It doesn't handle anything, he reproduce statistical patterns. If it seems it cares about the details it's because he's been trained to regurgitate stuff. Another thing is being expert in something and being able to prompt the clanker, and those who are, usually underestimate how much their knowledge is steering the machine in the right direction

Brian_K_White 2mo ago

Everyone feels like they are now the ceo of their own empire of ai flunkies who do the actual work guided by their above-all-that vision, and they luuuuuuv that. But useless ceos generate bad output just like useless direct coders. It's like everyone is adopting the once only-for-the-rich mindset where artisan is actually a derogatory term. Where Micheal Angelo is the same as the cow stall poop shoveler, because they actually do something directly themselves.

flogistonical 2mo ago

The pro argument is always quantity based, yet we never get to see the actual gain in quality. It's always "I'm doing SO MUCH more". Never "I'm doing better, with less effort." It's also what we see in the wild. There are so many things going on, so many news about "AI". Are things getting better in any meaningful way? Why are we getting so much from "AI" yet things keep getting worse? The only real, objective and verifiable gain has been the stock price of a handful of companies, most of them heavily into infrastructure and manufacturing hardware. Seems like a pretty clear pattern. There's so much output, but everything is worse. And the only argument we hear for why this is actually a good thing is just how much more output there is. Hmmm

sedawkgrep 2mo ago
> The pro argument is always quantity based, yet we never get to see the actual gain in quality. It's always "I'm doing SO MUCH more". Never "I'm doing better, with less effort." For me, it's "I can do this now; yesterday I could not." I am not a developer - I am a hack with some experience in a smattering of languages who hits very real obstacles very quickly. AI has allowed me to overcome those obstacles and build things that literally I could not do before. Yesterday I could not differentiate quake 3 matches within a single demo file. Today I can split them into separate files and have the server stream them to me so I can watch them on demand.
- everforward 2mo ago
  It’s basically the same thing as AI generated art, whichever side of that you fall on. I do IT, I can’t make any kind of art to save my own life. The art the AI generates is neat to me because I get to feel in control of making something beyond my own skills. The flip side is equally true, though. The things I make are derivative, and not particularly neat to other people (and actively irritate actual artists). AI software is a lot like that. I’m happy people who aren’t software engineers can make their own thing and be totally in control of that. I’ve also yet to see much AI software that blows existing stuff out of the water. Most of is derivative of something that already exists, if not an outright clone with a slightly different emphasis (think Jira but for a very specific workflow).

hangrybear666 2mo ago

As long as these tools remain for your personal use there is nothing wrong with that. The moment other people rely on them however, it would become reckless oversight to operate in that way.