Support this channel on Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/zoranhorvatGenerative AI can write code, but it cannot develop software on its own. Here is why the…
Support this channel on Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/zoranhorvatGenerative AI can write code, but it cannot develop software on its own. Here is why the…
There can be a million papers on how AI is worthless, the vibe coders are way too brainwashed into their shitty habits that they’ll never stop. It’s basically a sect at this point, but a sect that is destroying the world.
I’ve coded “professionally” (solo dev for a small company. Not the full dev experience so big caveat)
I find AI is amazing at writing unit tests and other test harnesses. That’s all it’s good for besides summarizing documentation and even then it’s so misleading it’s basically useless you have to constantly doubt it. It’s a pathological liar… And I mean it’s kind of an impossible task… It’s trained on the entire internet. The strongest weights it has are for the oldest and most popular libraries. Oftentimes it’s telling me to use deprecated shit left and right because that’s biased extremely high during training, and maybe 1% of posts on that library mention it’s deprecation.
I prefer to write my code the old fashioned way. If I have it generate code it’s never pasted in, and I prefer having it explain what I don’t know about what it’s doing. Using it as an assistant and a TDD buddy works relatively well.
Also if you poke at software architecture. I’ve learned a lot (I wasn’t formally schooled in computer science) and it’s good as long as you constrain the scope of what you’re asking about, and make sure to consider it on your own against the existing project architecture. I still make the design decisions myself.
Oh, also having it make design decision documents. I often make those to record “this is why I’m doing this feature this way. These are the options I considered, and why I decided my way is better in this particular case” so I have a record of my state of mind and decision making. AI is phenomenal at making easy to read and well summarised DDDs
Some of my coworkers say this too. The tests are generally garbage that don’t test what they say they do. All this says is that you don’t care how useful your tests are outside of checking a box
Yes you have to verify it yourself you don’t just trust it. The biggest benefit is tests are extremely to read and falsify like simple scripts. It’s faster to generate it than type it by hand, and any edits I make are minimal or require a reprompt that gets it right the second time.
There are papers that are pro and con. It’s a new tech - we’re still figuring out how to use it. It’s gotten a lot better than a year or two ago though.
It’s definitely helped me get things done a lot faster. You can point to “that one study everyone does” and tell me “no it’s not” but honestly, it is.
I’ll give you an example - I had to write a small bash script to fix home directory ownership on a server because somebody borked it and some critical jobs weren’t launching properly. Just something to read /etc/passwd, parse out the owner and home dir and
chown-R $user $home. Dozens of user dirs so quicker to just script it.Time was of the essence. Claude had a script in ~6 seconds. Yeah - I could have written it - but not that fast. I validated the output and gave it a run. All’s good.
You can insult me as “not good developer” or whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better - your opinion of me is irrelevant. But these tools are pretty damn good at what they do if you use them properly. “Properly” being the key word here. They are tools not employees so you need the proper critical thinking to apply them effectively.
proceeds to not mention or link any paper that is pro.
If you’re interested you can search, since you haven’t I assume you’re not.
You are the first I’ve heard of this, burden of proof is on you. Claiming there is proof then refusing to provide it, saying others should look it up is actually so common on Lemmy that it’s an instant indication that someone is lying out of their ass.
It’s funny how everyone that tries to defend the use of AI, other than deny the fact that most evidence (and common sense/basic understanding of AIs) points to the idea that it’s just negative, always avoid the subject of environment.
Even if you assumed that you get the same result with Claude or whatever in 6 seconds, and with your brain in five minutes… Is the end of humanity and a massive extinction event worth those 5 minutes?
Defending AI while there are literally news popping out right now about heat waves being more violent than ever recorded and killing thousands of people per day in countries that had no problems with heat a few decades ago, is extremely selfish and self-centered. And the only justification is “it’s a bit faster and easier”. Okay.
All of this, and the facts that the entire thing was trained on stolen material, and the companies behind it are all run by bat shit crazy shitheads.
Everyone loves to shit on US tech companies, hates Windows and MS, and Amazon, Google, Apple, and Meta (all rightfully so), but is absolutely willing to overlook the AI companies that are arguably doing more harm than those others combined (or are tightly invested / integrated with them, or are them) just so they don’t have to spend a few minutes typing, or thinking about how something works.
It wasn’t even brought up twerp.
Ah so I guess you can’t read. Might explain the need to defend AI.
Easy block.
Yeah this is the type of constrained use case I use it for too. Same with unit tests and testing in general.