Thomas 🔭🕹️Jul 9

No, computers won’t replace humans to write code for themselves.

Please stop with this nonsense.

What we will see though is tremendous losses in productivity as deskilled programmers will get less and less education and practice—and take longer and longer to make broken AI-generated code work. Meanwhile, AI models will regress from eating their own generated shit when being trained on.

Eventually AI companies will finally run out of investors to scam—and when they disappear or get so expensive they become unaffordable, “prompt engineers” will be asked to not use AI anymore.

What’s gonna happen then?

We’re losing a whole generation of programmers to this while thought leaders in our field are talking about “inevitability” and are jerking off to sci-fi-nostalgia-fueled fantasies of AGI.

Show threadWulfyJul 9

@thomasfuchs

You make the flawed assumption that AI tech will not advance.
That has not been the case so far.
Not sure why you might think this since there is no evidence for that.

Show threadGlen, waiting for the pre-pollJul 9

@n_dimension @thomasfuchs You make the flawed assumption that "AI tech" will advance, despite all the best training data already have being used.

Sure models may get cheaper to train, and there may be more handrails to prevent the worst outcomes. But even for a modest goal of 100x fewer incorrect results there is simply no path.

Show threadKevin Karhan 

@glent @n_dimension @thomasfuchs precisely!

  • There is a finite amount of "good quality code" to train on and there are finite ways to solve defined problems in each programming language unless we accept inefficiency just to circumvent optimal solutions...
Jul 9 at 1:56pmWeb
Show threadWulfyJul 9

@kkarhan @glent @thomasfuchs

"Generative" not "Duplicative"

Show threadKevin Karhan Jul 9
@n_dimension @glent @thomasfuchs not really generative, as I said: There are finite ways to solve a problem unless you want to specifically create unmaintainable code.
Show threadWulfyJul 9

@kkarhan @glent @thomasfuchs

A fascinating philosophical and mathematical problem.
Countable infinity and uncountable infinity.

I am sceptical about your claim "there are finite ways of solving a problem".
Intuitively, I feel that's wrong, as we work within various (artificial) constrains.
I won't argue it, as I am fundamentally ignorant of it.

But I will delve deeper into theory of algorithms. You piqued my interest, thanks.

Show threadKevin Karhan Jul 9

@n_dimension @glent @thomasfuchs There are finite ways to solve a problem given a specific toolset and finite resources...

  • IOW: There are only few methods to i.e. compare values being identical or not that are reliable for any data type and espechally across data types.

And that is a matter of fact with any programming languague.

Feel free to read up i.e. on strcmp and other functions, because there are few options at hand.

https://infosec.exchange/@n_dimension/114825445766946870

Wulfy (@n_dimension@infosec.exchange)

@kkarhan@infosec.space @glent@aus.social @thomasfuchs@hachyderm.io A fascinating philosophical and mathematical problem. Countable infinity and uncountable infinity. I am sceptical about your claim "there are finite ways of solving a problem". Intuitively, I feel that's wrong, as we work within various (artificial) constrains. I won't argue it, as I am fundamentally ignorant of it. But I will delve deeper into theory of algorithms. You piqued my interest, thanks.

Infosec Exchange
Show threadWulfyJul 9

@kkarhan @glent @thomasfuchs

Thanks will do.