> What scares me most is how they allow people who don't fully know what they're doing to deploy software, especially corporate software.
Which is why I also think some people get such disparate experiences. If your organization is allowing clueless people to confidently throw stuff built by LLMs at mission-critical problems, that does seem more like an organizational problem than an LLM problem. (A related problem: the amount of people who keep shoving claude shit in front of us, thinking they've "edited" it enough to not sound like it came from it. I can spot it from a mile away and usually make myself loud about it if I have the power to stop it. AI is not an excuse for mediocrity.)
There's so much to hate about LLMs, and there's so much to love. And since we've sort of ended up in this world of constant false dichotomies, this kind of nuance gets lost in the trenches.
Of course LLMs in the wrong of clueless people are bad. Of course the way in which these models were trained is shameful and it's criminal that people are having their work stolen. Of course we need to find ways of dealing with slop. Of course it's bad for the environment at the moment (and so on). The list goes on and on, I know that.
But on either side of this debate (which SHOULD NOT HAVE TWO SIDES -- that's THE problem), people just tend to lump everything together. Your example is one some acquaintances repeatedly throw my way, and I'm left wondering if they have even thought that they're just showing me how broken their org is, not how bad the tech is? But, nope, they turn to me and go "AI bad bad"...