@simonmic Thanks for reading and considering. I agree it's a big complex topic, which is why I don't believe it being useful for software development is necessarily sufficient justification for that use, or anywhere in fact that we find it has utility.

Whatever our views on that, I don't doubt it will have utility in some contexts. But the downsides of that use, whatever it is, go far beyond the immediate context.

1/2

@simonmic
So the complexity is in fact part of the difficulty for anyone trying to make an objective assessment of the overall justification for it's use in any particular context.

So yes it's a very hard one to debate. 😃

2/2

> I don't believe it being useful for software development is necessarily sufficient justification

Right you are @happyborg , I agree. I think we must try to judge the overall impact of a particular use - is it net positive or net negative ? This can be hard of course.

What do you think of other possible "justifications" mentioned in the doc, eg

- "The result provides enough value to society to outweigh the cost"

- "We use AI once to build an efficient tool so many people will use AI less"

@simonmic

> "We use AI once to build an efficient tool so many people will use AI less"

I don't think this is credible and not something I'm seeing people saying, so tbh I haven't considered it. It doesn't seem to take account of either where we are or of human nature in general.

@simonmic Ah, thanks for clarifying. I understand the logic better.

I don't think many will use your tool over AI once they are in the habit. It's too easy to waste hours typing dumb prompts than to sit and think for five minutes, or find the right tool for the job.

You and I will do it, but we're a minority and let's face it, it's in the interests of purveyors to maximise token use (cf. the attention economy which has become a danger, recognition of which is resulting in age verification 🤦‍♂️).