Replace AI with Excel in your argument and repeat it again. Do you see how silly you sound?

Developers are resentful toward AI for the same reason they resented blockchain--it becomes a buzz word that every middle manager is convinced will improve productivity, and it's forced whether it's actually helpful or not.

I work on safety-critical code. AI is useless here, but we have to "use" it to appease clueless shareholders.

The issue with AI is not that it's not an impressive technology, it's that it's built on stolen data and is incredibly wasteful of resources. It's a lot like cars in that regard, sure it solves some problems and is more convenient than the alternatives, but its harmful externalities vastly outweigh the benefits.

LLMs are amazing because they steal the amazing work of humans. Encyclopedias, scientific papers, open source projects, fiction, news, etc. Every time the LLM gets something right, it's because a human figured it out, their work was published, and some company scraped it without permission. Yet it's the LLM that gets the credit and not the person. Their very existence is unjust because they profit off humanity's collective labour and give nothing in return.

No matter how good the technology is, if it's made through unethical means, it doesn't deserve to exist. You're not entitled to AI more than content creators are entitled to their intellectual property.

This is a pretty good take imo

Like AI, IoT is an important and lasting technology

But too many businesses and products jumped on a misguided bandwagon to pull stupid uniformed VC money

It’s built on publicly available data, the same way that humans learn, by reading and observing what is accessible. Many are also now trained on licensed, opt-in and synthetic data.

They don’t erase credit they amplify access to human ideas.

Training consumes energy, but its ongoing usage to query is vastly cheaper to query than most industrial processes. You’re assuming it cannot reduce our energy usage by improving efficiency and removing manual labour.

“If something is made unethically, it shouldn’t exist”

By that logic, nearly all modern technology (from smartphones to pharmaceuticals) would be invalidated.

And fyi I am an anarchist and do not think intellectual property is a valid thing to start with.

I think you're also underestimating the benefits cars have ushered, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone serious that can show that the harm has 'outweighed their benefits'

Copilot in Code is hell. It pops code suggestions almost after every keystroke. Idiotic suggestions mostly.

You can configure that I think? (The every keystroke, not the stupidity)

"This is just plain fuckin' stupid. Your neighbor gets a dildo that plays 'O Come, All Ye Faithful' and you wanna get one too!"

What would happen if you collectively put your foot down on zero "AI code" to management, with such critical applications?

I'm a senior with a good boss, I pretty much just ignore it. And fortunately, at least in my company, most people have done that (especially with the safety critical stuff). But management still has a way of making your life miserable when you stand your ground on this kind of thing, so it's also common to just tell them some bullshit and go about your job.

I just remembered the sidequest in Cyberpunk 2077 with the guy that had a faulty Mr. Stud implanted...

IDK connecting a electronic masturbation device to a chatbot so it can robotically tell you how its raping you and you deserve it because you're a worthless human is kinda hot.

And combined with a smart watch and a blood pressure cuff, I bet it could learn to edge you perfectly and indefinitely.

This guy (a founding engineer of fly.io) isn't claiming his 10x status in the article on the grounds that he uses AI

Indeed, he's claiming that he gets value from AI despite being a 10xer without it

I gave you the up vote because it's a good take, but this really has nothing to do with the article, so I can tell that you and a bunch of your 58 up voters didn't read it

I did read it, and my comment is exactly referencing the attitude of the author which is "It's good enough, so you should use it". I disagree, and say it's another dumbass shortcut to cash grab on a less than stellar ecosystem and product. It's training wheels for failure.