What I think is also good about the piece is that it shows how using this tech eventually funnels people down a particular direction. This is captured also by this exchange on lobste.rs: https://lobste.rs/s/7d8dxv/i_used_ai_it_worked_i_hated_it#c_7jirfk

The story that people start with vs where they go is very different:

- They're really just for experts, and are assistants, they don't write the code for you
- Okay the write a lot of the code for me, but I personally don't commit anything without reviewing
- YOLO mode

Which eventually leads you to becoming the drinky bird pressing the Y key from that Simpsons episode. (Funnily enough I wrote that in my comment on lobste.rs in reply to someone else before I had even gotten to the point where I saw that @mttaggart literally had that gif)

And at that point, you're checked out. All that's left is vibes.

And unfortunately, these systems don't survive that point very well. And neither do you, in your skills and abilities.

There are a lot of other concerns but I think since a lot of people on the fediverse are opposed to these tools, they might not be very familiar with where they're currently at ability-wise. @mttaggart provides a good description that they *are* capable of solving many problems you put in front of them... and that doesn't remove the other problems they generate or involved in their process.

The slop part isn't just the individual outputs, but the cumulation, and the effect on society itself.

Is that pushing the goalposts? It may be. I think "slop" used to be easier to dismiss when it came to code because it was obviously bad. Now when it's bad, it's non-obviously bad, which is part of its own problem. And cognitive debt, deskilling, and etc don't get factored into the quality of output aspect.

But unfortunately, the immediate reward aspects of these things are going to make it hard for society to recognize.

Let me add one more thing to this. It's said implicitly above but let's be explicit. The problem is that this pipeline effectively *undoes itself*.

Part of the reason this worked well for @mttaggart is carefully setting up guardrails and monitoring things.

But the very patterns of usage of these things makes it so that people either never develop the skills where they can, or are demotivated to provide that level of care over time.

Which means the system eventually moves towards a structure that degrades and shakes itself apart by the very patterns of usage.

I don't know how to solve this.