At this point, I consider these AI tools to be an invaluable asset to my work in the same way that search engines are. It’s integrated into my work. But it takes practice on how to use it correctly.
It's because I've used it and it doesn't come even close to delivering the value that its advocates claim it does. Nothing mysterious about it.
Alternatively, you are referring to the latter group and, uh, sorry.
I think the AI companies have over-promised in terms of “vibe” coding, as you need to be very specific, not at all based on “vibes”.
I’m one of those advocates for AI, but on HN it consistently gets downvoted no matter how I try to explain things. There’s a super strong anti-AI sentiment here.
1. AI does things we can already do but cheaper and worse.
This is the current state of affairs. Things are mostly the same except for the flood of slop driving out quality. My life is moderately worse.
2. Total victory of capital over labor.
This is what the proponents are aiming for. It's disastrous for the >99% of the population who will become economically useless. I can't imagine any kind of universal basic income when the masses can instead be conveniently disposed of with automated killer drones or whatever else the victors come up with.
3. Extinction of all biological life.
This is what happens if the proponents succeed better than they anticipated. If recursively self-improving ASI pans out then nobody stands a chance. There are very few goals an ASI can have that aren't better accomplished with everybody dead.
Even if they want to do it for no reason, they'll still be happier if their friends and family are alive and happy, which recurses about 6 times before everybody on the planet is alive and happy.