So this is some what problematic. Technology has benefits does not mean it has to be allowed. Question is what do we gain and at what cost. If the answer is we gain speed, then the followup is “does it really matter?”.
Speed of coding is the common answer. Another one is non programmers are able to make programmes. Both of it does not add much of a real value is the point. Because when the machine churn out code at a very high rate, then the humans who should review it gets under pressure. We are not addressing the real bottleneck, instead we just pump out more material which just intensify the congestion at the bottleneck. Quality goes down, we get things like AWS going down, Microsoft wiping people’s machines, etc. In other words it creates problem without much meaningful gain.
Regarding the non-programmers making programmes, it mostly just create a lot of noise. There is a lot of weekend projects, one shot attempts, or some half cooked outcomes. Only a handful of projects with meaningful impact in the world will be born out of it. We all know, even before AI, out of hundreds of thousands of GitHub repos only a small section is actually well maintained, and deliver something to the world.
I don’t have to explain at what cost. It is just literally affecting the climate and accelarting the collapse of current ecosystem. Are we doing this so that a code can be written in 1 hour, instead of one day? If you get more free time because of this, well, at least we can say the load is reduced. But we all know we just get more work to do from our employer. So I don’t really think this is a net positive.
as my father said before, whatever time you make up using generative AI is time being used to fix it’s bugs. the ratio isn’t a linear progression, were comparing a linear to exponential duration respectively. since whatever time you made up in generating code is now being used to debug it and researching the design. you’re doing twice as much work as you would have if you had done the research and initial design beforehand.
instead of letting AI do the fun stuff, that is, the initial design of the program, let yourself do that. When you are done with the initial design (if any bugs show up) you can give AI to debug any code that may cause arbitrarily obscure behavior.
you want to make AI your bitch, not the other way around.
I still wouldn’t use AI, like ever, from the profiling of users to the environmental impact, the industry is unethical. but that’s my philosophy. Point is don’t let AI control you and make you redundant, make it your bitch – make it do the tedious tasks.
So this is some what problematic. Technology has benefits does not mean it has to be allowed. Question is what do we gain and at what cost. If the answer is we gain speed, then the followup is “does it really matter?”.
Speed of coding is the common answer. Another one is non programmers are able to make programmes. Both of it does not add much of a real value is the point. Because when the machine churn out code at a very high rate, then the humans who should review it gets under pressure. We are not addressing the real bottleneck, instead we just pump out more material which just intensify the congestion at the bottleneck. Quality goes down, we get things like AWS going down, Microsoft wiping people’s machines, etc. In other words it creates problem without much meaningful gain.
Regarding the non-programmers making programmes, it mostly just create a lot of noise. There is a lot of weekend projects, one shot attempts, or some half cooked outcomes. Only a handful of projects with meaningful impact in the world will be born out of it. We all know, even before AI, out of hundreds of thousands of GitHub repos only a small section is actually well maintained, and deliver something to the world.
I don’t have to explain at what cost. It is just literally affecting the climate and accelarting the collapse of current ecosystem. Are we doing this so that a code can be written in 1 hour, instead of one day? If you get more free time because of this, well, at least we can say the load is reduced. But we all know we just get more work to do from our employer. So I don’t really think this is a net positive.
as my father said before, whatever time you make up using generative AI is time being used to fix it’s bugs. the ratio isn’t a linear progression, were comparing a linear to exponential duration respectively. since whatever time you made up in generating code is now being used to debug it and researching the design. you’re doing twice as much work as you would have if you had done the research and initial design beforehand.
instead of letting AI do the fun stuff, that is, the initial design of the program, let yourself do that. When you are done with the initial design (if any bugs show up) you can give AI to debug any code that may cause arbitrarily obscure behavior.
you want to make AI your bitch, not the other way around.
I still wouldn’t use AI, like ever, from the profiling of users to the environmental impact, the industry is unethical. but that’s my philosophy. Point is don’t let AI control you and make you redundant, make it your bitch – make it do the tedious tasks.
…That was literally no different before AI.
Oh. I meant before AI only. I should have clarified that.