3 ms·

> you have to use it at work unless you want to go out the door Why people are so compelled to gospel about their saviors to others? Why tech became a cult?

gruez 1mo ago
Did you read the subsequent sentence? >Side projects is completely upto you That hardly strikes me as "gospel about their saviors" to me. Not to mention at least in my circles that statement is approximately true, even at a company that hasn't gone full AI-crazy (eg. with unlimited token spend and AI use leaderboards).
estetlinus 1mo ago
I think it happened when it solved one of those Erdős problems, while also knowing everything there is to know about birds, mitochondria, history of Uganda, etc. Even my most contrarian friends have a hard time justifying coding by hand. To say it slopaganda style; That’s not a cult, that’s common sense.
- g-b-r 1mo ago
  How about all the times it confidently states made up stuff, and writes horribly insecure code? That's not common sense, that's bs.
  - gruez 1mo ago
    Everything you described applies to human written code, especially ones you're randomly copy pasting from the internet. Maybe if the stackoverflow answer you're copying from is popular enough that people will catch it, but otherwise you'd probably have better luck asking AI to review it.
    - g-b-r 1mo ago
      I don't think it's common for human developers to confidently state made up stuff. They may be incompetent, but they're unlikely to lie too brazenly. Yes, you should always declare when you're pasting something from the internet, and how much you checked it. But, to get back to the post's topic, do you know how you protect yourself from poor developers? You see code written by them, and you say "let's check this very carefully"; or let's just avoid this project altogether. How do you do that for an AI agent, if it's not declared that they're the authors of some code?

gruez 1mo ago

Did you read the subsequent sentence? >Side projects is completely upto you That hardly strikes me as "gospel about their saviors" to me. Not to mention at least in my circles that statement is approximately true, even at a company that hasn't gone full AI-crazy (eg. with unlimited token spend and AI use leaderboards).

estetlinus 1mo ago

I think it happened when it solved one of those Erdős problems, while also knowing everything there is to know about birds, mitochondria, history of Uganda, etc. Even my most contrarian friends have a hard time justifying coding by hand. To say it slopaganda style; That’s not a cult, that’s common sense.

g-b-r 1mo ago
How about all the times it confidently states made up stuff, and writes horribly insecure code? That's not common sense, that's bs.
- gruez 1mo ago
  Everything you described applies to human written code, especially ones you're randomly copy pasting from the internet. Maybe if the stackoverflow answer you're copying from is popular enough that people will catch it, but otherwise you'd probably have better luck asking AI to review it.
  - g-b-r 1mo ago
    I don't think it's common for human developers to confidently state made up stuff. They may be incompetent, but they're unlikely to lie too brazenly. Yes, you should always declare when you're pasting something from the internet, and how much you checked it. But, to get back to the post's topic, do you know how you protect yourself from poor developers? You see code written by them, and you say "let's check this very carefully"; or let's just avoid this project altogether. How do you do that for an AI agent, if it's not declared that they're the authors of some code?