Rendered at 01:15:40 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
impulser_ 53 minutes ago [-]
"If all of this was done to better humanity, AI development would be done in public, data would be legally obtained, models would be released for free, access wouldn't be gatekept behind ever increasing subscription costs."
The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek, and all the other research labs. There are more research labs than there are closed shops. In fact there really is only one Anthropic, and lately maybe OpenAI. Google still releases papers all the time on AI.
There are more open source models than closed source models and all of them are accessible without a subscription. Yeah you still need to pay for them, but hey as we build out infrastructure and more time is put into efficient models today will easily run on person compute of the future.
supern0va 21 minutes ago [-]
I'm not sure an article that gives one paragraph summaries of the common anti-LLM talking points is really a substantial contribution to the conversation. This is essentially a snarked up version of a "Criticisms" section one would expect to find in a Wikipedia article on modern generative AI. It's fairly hollow unless you've had your head in the sand and are just getting up to speed on the current conversation.
meerita 43 minutes ago [-]
I have read the article, but at some point, the statement "GenAI: Capitalism in Perfection" did not make sense to me, please don't bash me. I disagree with most of the author's points.
I do not understand what the problem is. There are both closed and open models. You can run your own machine with dozens of open models. You can train your own model. You can do everything on your own.
Of course, there are limitations. For example, you cannot magically have all the best hardware at your disposal, but that limitation also exists in normal programming.
atleastoptimal 1 hours ago [-]
> I am going to state a bet: In 5 to 10 years, once all the vibe coders get hooked into LLMs, there's going to be so much unmaintainable, wrongly architectured crap code in every codebase they touch, that by then they are unable to get any work done without consulting their LLM. And if that heap of collected technical debt becomes so large that even the LLM fails
In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder that this is a moot point. If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
I can understand hating AI, but it seems like many who are against genAI have a strange delusional disbelief of how good the models are, and the trend-line we are on. They think that their special skills will never be eclipsed by an AI model. If you are going on a crusade against genAI and LLM’s at least be honest about what you’re up against.
supern0va 12 minutes ago [-]
>If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
In my organization, this is already happening. We've been using LLMs to boost our test coverage without touching our human code, then use that as a scaffold to let it go through and refactor, clean up, and optimize, and then validating against both our tests and gold standard test datasets.
In our case, it's made a legacy codebase far more readable to our junior engineers, and the performance improvements (from using an autoresearch-style approach) has resulted in a six figure decrease in our compute spend for the production service we trialed this on.
daishi55 1 hours ago [-]
In my opinion by Opus 4.7 Claude was better at coding than most programmers. While there is certainly more slop being produced now overall, I believe the quality of important projects like Linux and proprietary software created by large companies, where advanced AI will be piloted by skilled engineers, will improve in quality, maybe dramatically, over the next decade.
atleastoptimal 59 minutes ago [-]
I am still 100% willing to concede that Opus 4.8 or even how good Mythos is supposed to be is not yet at the general reasoning ability of top 5% coders or any smart human with a few years of domain experience. However the rate of improvement is so consistent and unrelenting that it seems silly to assume that it will just stop short of human level. Even if algorithmic, research and data quality improvements suddenly stopped, we still have years of better GPU’s and scaling
kelseyfrog 50 minutes ago [-]
Programming requires thinking and LLMs can't think. Therefore LLMs cannot be better than humans at programming.
supern0va 23 minutes ago [-]
Your statement seems to be implying (correctly) that LLMs can program, but just not as well as humans. If they're able to program presumably without "thinking" as you seem to be (implicitly) narrowly defining it, then why do you think that limits them to always being sub-par?
It seems like if they can do it, that there's no reason they can't eventually be trained to do it better up to and beyond human performance. It seems strange to suggest that thinking unlocks some nominal margin of "better" specifically that can't be overcome.
All of that aside, even if they can't outperform the top human programmers...what if they get to within a margin where they're still better than most? Isn't a 95th percentile programmer that can run 24/7 and continuously refine its work still going to ultimately come out on top?
abigail95 20 minutes ago [-]
Well I guess that settles it. Losing to LLMs in CTF challenges must be in my head.
llbbdd 43 minutes ago [-]
Programming is just telling a computer what to do. LLMs gave turned out to be pretty good at that. What is thinking, anyway?
king_zee 40 minutes ago [-]
>Programming requires thinking
The issue about AI is that it's gobbling so much information that at some point you couldn't tell the difference. Programming specifically is something that inherently documents itself, meaning while human communication and context and memes and culture is something that evolves and exists many times outside of textual mediums, as soon as any new piece of code is born it is now part of the AI's dataset. And it doesn't help that a vast majority of our code is pretty damn repetitive, especially if you insert code written in the span of two decades and more into the future.
Tldr : The better we get at coding, the more code we write, the better AI gets at coding.
fzeroracer 12 minutes ago [-]
> If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
What funny nonsense. This is like saying AI will replace artists because it's better than your average artist.
Software engineering is as much an artform as it is infrastructure. AI cannot approximate even a poor engineer because it cannot capture the full context of a problem to be solved.
fathermarz 1 hours ago [-]
I sincerely disagree that AI is worse than the crypto/NFT hype… pig butchering is one of the most disgusting practices imaginable and it was turned into a legitimate low effort vehicle for scammers due to web3 and the hype train.
AI is definitely on a scale of magnitude more but it has inherent value outside of “scarcity”. It’s actually quite the opposite with sheer supply/demand balance. Also investing in crypto made me less money than investing in myself by using AI to learn and challenge myself to think differently.
0xbadcafebee 52 minutes ago [-]
The thing I don't like about AI doomerism posts is the intellectual dishonesty. We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before, using AI. We're going to make better diagnoses faster. Adults will be able to accomplish more tasks due to the reduction in the barrier of specialized knowledge and skill. Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today. Companies will be able to triage, diagnose, and fix issues faster and easier than ever before. We will likely spend less money, do less work, and gain more in goods, services, solutions, and health, than ever before.
AI is going to transform people's lives for the better, because every single solitary advancement in human technology in history has had both benefits and drawbacks. If the only thing you can come up with is drawbacks, you're being willfully ignorant.
35 minutes ago [-]
skydhash 12 minutes ago [-]
Unless that is done, it’s merely fiction. While the negative impact of LLM is already here. Slop, aggressive scraping, workflow disruption at scale,…
onesingleblast 52 minutes ago [-]
And then everyone clapped.
amiantos 1 hours ago [-]
Aw, good for you
moomoo11 1 hours ago [-]
2005: "Why would I run my workloads in the cloud? I have 400 certifications!"
bigstrat2003 51 minutes ago [-]
There is still, to this very day, not a good reason for most businesses to run their workloads in the cloud (startups being a notable exception). So, your argument isn't as compelling as you think.
jabwd 1 hours ago [-]
Try reading the article next time.
SkyeCA 58 minutes ago [-]
I generally try not to be outright dismissive of articles/blogposts, but I don't see a ton of value in reading about someone being against opening Pandora's Box after the box has been opened. It can never be shut and we are going to have to figure out how to live with the consequences of it.
I gave the article a chance regardless and it's nothing I've not read before.
daishi55 1 hours ago [-]
It’s kind of a pointless article. Also framed wrong. Generative AI doesn’t “stand for” anything. It’s just a cool technology. Author’s time would be better spent criticizing big tech perhaps.
The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek, and all the other research labs. There are more research labs than there are closed shops. In fact there really is only one Anthropic, and lately maybe OpenAI. Google still releases papers all the time on AI.
There are more open source models than closed source models and all of them are accessible without a subscription. Yeah you still need to pay for them, but hey as we build out infrastructure and more time is put into efficient models today will easily run on person compute of the future.
I do not understand what the problem is. There are both closed and open models. You can run your own machine with dozens of open models. You can train your own model. You can do everything on your own.
Of course, there are limitations. For example, you cannot magically have all the best hardware at your disposal, but that limitation also exists in normal programming.
In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder that this is a moot point. If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
I can understand hating AI, but it seems like many who are against genAI have a strange delusional disbelief of how good the models are, and the trend-line we are on. They think that their special skills will never be eclipsed by an AI model. If you are going on a crusade against genAI and LLM’s at least be honest about what you’re up against.
In my organization, this is already happening. We've been using LLMs to boost our test coverage without touching our human code, then use that as a scaffold to let it go through and refactor, clean up, and optimize, and then validating against both our tests and gold standard test datasets.
In our case, it's made a legacy codebase far more readable to our junior engineers, and the performance improvements (from using an autoresearch-style approach) has resulted in a six figure decrease in our compute spend for the production service we trialed this on.
It seems like if they can do it, that there's no reason they can't eventually be trained to do it better up to and beyond human performance. It seems strange to suggest that thinking unlocks some nominal margin of "better" specifically that can't be overcome.
All of that aside, even if they can't outperform the top human programmers...what if they get to within a margin where they're still better than most? Isn't a 95th percentile programmer that can run 24/7 and continuously refine its work still going to ultimately come out on top?
The issue about AI is that it's gobbling so much information that at some point you couldn't tell the difference. Programming specifically is something that inherently documents itself, meaning while human communication and context and memes and culture is something that evolves and exists many times outside of textual mediums, as soon as any new piece of code is born it is now part of the AI's dataset. And it doesn't help that a vast majority of our code is pretty damn repetitive, especially if you insert code written in the span of two decades and more into the future.
Tldr : The better we get at coding, the more code we write, the better AI gets at coding.
What funny nonsense. This is like saying AI will replace artists because it's better than your average artist.
Software engineering is as much an artform as it is infrastructure. AI cannot approximate even a poor engineer because it cannot capture the full context of a problem to be solved.
AI is definitely on a scale of magnitude more but it has inherent value outside of “scarcity”. It’s actually quite the opposite with sheer supply/demand balance. Also investing in crypto made me less money than investing in myself by using AI to learn and challenge myself to think differently.
AI is going to transform people's lives for the better, because every single solitary advancement in human technology in history has had both benefits and drawbacks. If the only thing you can come up with is drawbacks, you're being willfully ignorant.
I gave the article a chance regardless and it's nothing I've not read before.