1,029 karma · joined December 25, 2023
If AI had such obvious gains, why not accelerate that timeline to 6 months?
Take the average time to make a simple app, divide by the supposed productivity speed up, and this should be the time we see a wave of AI coded apps.
As time goes on, the only conclusion we can reach (especially looking at the data) is that the productivity gains are not substantial.
I experienced this too asking LLM to help with a problem with a particular Arduino board. Even with being a very popular microcontroller, it is probably giving blended answers from the 15 other types of Arduino boards, not the one I have.
See contradicting data here: https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware...
The link at the bottom of the post (https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware...) goes over this exactly.
> Businesses, on the other hand, announce headcount reductions due to AI and of course nobody believes them.
It’s an excuse. It’s the dream peddled by AI companies: automate intelligence so you can fire your human workers.
Look at the graphs in the post, then revisit claims about AI productivity.
The data doesn’t lie. AI peddlers do.
Give some concrete examples of why current LLM/AI is disruptive technology like digital cameras.
That’s the whole point of the article. Show the obvious gains.
It’s amazing how much intense of a Scrooge McDuck vibes we’re getting from the MBA executive class.
Crank the screws, tighten the belt, offshore, increase profits at all costs. The next generations are going to have it rough since these elites have intentionally hoarded prosperity at the expense of their countrymen
Relating / personifying LLM to an engineer doesn’t work out
Maybe the best though model currently is just “good way to automate trivial text modifications” and “encyclopedic ramblings”
People pushing AI desperately want to convince us the value is positive. 10x productivity! Fire all your humans!
In reality, depending on the use-case, the value is much smaller. And can be negative thinking about the total value over long term (incomprehensible shoddy foundations of large / long running projects)
I’m guessing the go language design went too far into “simplicity” at the expense of reasonableness.
For example, we can make a “simpler” language by not supporting multiplication, just use addition and write your own!
Our right to choose install software on our own devices should not be encroached because over-trusting elderly follower scammers instructions.
We can protect people like your dad with an opt-in system like parental controls. Have a responsible family member lock the system down however you deem fit.
I also love looking back at my old PE code and having absolutely no idea what it doing. No comments, no docs, no notes. From a different era.
Both have pros and cons
Regulation sucks at directing productions of goods and setting prices, distributing these tasks to the people generally works better.
The free market is unstable though, its actors ever trying to gain advantage and squash competition. Profit first driven people too often push harm to humans as out of mind and externalized.
This is where regulation is needed. (read as: we the people need rules to protect what we deem important, including our health and having a well-functioning society, profits be damned)
Surely among us devs, as we realize app stores increasingly hostile, that the open web is worth fighting for, and that we have the numbers to build solutions?
Value truth and honesty. Call out lies for what they are.
This is the way to get sanity both for ourselves and for society as a whole
I was so surprised by the design choice to need to put recover in in deferred function calls. It’s crazy to smush together the error handling and normal execution code.
All the power to the people who love their Teslas, you do you.
Nice to call it feature complete and move on!
Hard disagree. Technology is a tool. Tools don’t do anything without a human in the loop, even if to initially run an autonomous system.
Even technology like guns and nukes are not inherently bad. Can we be trusted to behave ourselves with such tools? I would argue “no”.
For example, try disagreeing with the statement “SWEs should take reasonable effort to protect user data”
The only way you can exist on the modern world is to accept the TOS and crap that a small number of companies are in control over. Saying “just don’t use major tech services” makes people revert back to older methods like snail mail, which is just silly, not a real choice.
The consequences of “simply choosing no” matters. If that means you can’t interact in modern society, that means that service is essential, and should be tested as such.
Facebook is a massive part of social media. Billions of users. It is apart of society in its sheer size. A society decided “we want to make this better” and acted appropriately. I think it’s a noble pursuit for a society to attempt to reduce the clearly negative aspects of social media.
There is no real freedom of choice. The network effect cements big players positions. Try telling an 80 year old grandma with a 20 year old laptop to use mastodon. Likely no one she knows is on it.
Finally, individuals make essentially no difference when choosing to not use FB. But when choosing to not go to a local bar, that may be 0.03% loss of their monthly revenue. The only actor that can reasonably bargain with huge organizations is other huge organizations.
Just use the ISO and Rufus.
Make me lose respect even more for Microsoft, to think of all the wasted resources and money people thought they needed to because of “requirements”
There are many things I wish python, or a language like python, could improve on. Yet despite all my wishes, and choosing Rust/Go more often recently, Python still works.
I’m in a love/hate relationship with python. I think it’s becoming more of acceptance now haha.
Seems like a fundamentally hard engineering problem. Evolution is mighty impressive!
Just as the author says: “Publishing someone’s photo online, without their consent, without another strong justification, just because they happen to be in view of one’s camera lens, feels wrong to me.”
It doesn’t fall to the legal level, but a social rules level.
People who obnoxiously recording people in public, even if 100% legal, and disregard the wishes and conform of others around them deserve social consequences.
Some things should only exist at the social norms level. IMO it would be hunky dory if societies considered what “privacy in public” looks like in the modern age, and came to the conclusions like “no dragnets pls”.
Purely digital files are so cheap to copy that cost is negligible.
Recreating “physical share” functionality in digital space takes work ($$) for $company and directly leads to less sales.
I think a good moral reasoning would be to think of it like ticket sales. You pay to get in. The event organizers take on risk and expense to run the show. Rebroadcasting is like sneaking people in.