Top
Best
New

Posted by dimonomid 18 hours ago

AI Has No Wisdom and Neither Will You(alexn.org)
372 points | 525 commentspage 9
ill-ion 18 hours ago|
[flagged]
run-good-code 17 hours ago||
[dead]
pushpendraw 16 hours ago||
[dead]
aaron695 18 hours ago||
[dead]
catchnear4321 18 hours ago||
too doom and gloom.

has the author not started to develop instincts with regard to ai usage and pitfalls?

catchnear4321 18 hours ago|
apparently it needs spelled out.

you won’t lose your expertise if you continue to develop it, and blaming ai is like blaming macros or installers or…

the game hasn’t changed, really, but many are fretting that it has fallen apart.

t43562 17 hours ago||
Then you have to write code. Understanding without doing is not successful IMO.
catchnear4321 10 hours ago||
Is that why you stated the first as a fact?

Writing code is like many things. One means of producing the output.

t43562 10 hours ago||
I might review a paper on Quantum Physics but if I don't understand it then what's the value?
segmondy 18 hours ago||
(In the future we will see more and more companies proudly boasting their “NO-AI” policy as a competitive advantage. And they will be right.)

dumbest take ever. AI is here and not going away, any company that does so will not survive or will be a niche thing for hippies.

lolakutty 17 hours ago|
It is not going away, just like OOP has not gone away..
vale900i 18 hours ago||
> In the future we will see more and more companies proudly boasting their “NO-AI” policy as a competitive advantage. And they will be right.

i wouldn't know a single engineer who'd want to work at a place like that

tripledry 17 hours ago|
I would.
dwedge 18 hours ago|
As much as I agree with this article, I feel that there's a logical flaw here. The author admits that it's difficult to measure bad code - but continues with the assertion that it exists. If the only negative to "bad code" is that it's difficult to maintain once the author has left or difficult to refactor, then the question really is whether or not LLMs will continue to be able to maintain their spaghetti code.

Just because it's bad for a human doesn't necessarily mean everything will fall apart - unless a human has to maintain it unaided.

bakugo 17 hours ago||
I think the key distinction is that it's difficult to determine whether a single commit or pull request is bad code at a glance, but it's easy to determine when the codebase as a whole has gone bad due to many low quality commits.

The latter often doesn't even require looking at the code, you can usually feel it just by using the software. From my experience, all software primarily written by AI is full of little bugs and inconsistencies that reflect bad code architecture (such as two very similar pieces of functionality in two different places behaving in wildly different ways, due to the AI being unaware of the first when asked to implement the second and writing the code twice)

dwedge 17 hours ago||
I totally agree, and I agree with the article in general. I just don't think it follows that code that's bad because humans had to maintain it is necessarily bad by definition.

I've vibecoded loads of AI apps for myself and almost none of them are still in use. Not because I didn't really want them or they didn't work, but because the more I used them the dirtier I felt, as though I could feel the bad decisions and the bugs underneath just by interacting with it.

vividfrier 18 hours ago|||
[dead]
ttul 17 hours ago||
I think this kind of blog post reflects a fear of infantilization by AI. By asserting that only humans know what good code looks like, the author is attempting to mend his own ego.

Build the systems around the code and let the agents do their work.