Cindʎ Xiao 🍉 89642d ago

RE: https://infosec.exchange/@patrickcmiller/116749455911829582

Once again, "it's useful for programming" is being used as cover, to justify the continued existence of this company and industry.

The money that we pay toward coding assistants extends the runway this industry has, to continue positioning itself as "indispensable" and "inevitable", while destroying labour rights, open knowledge, and the environment in the meantime. That money is actually critical for that runway, because coding assistants are one of the only high-margin products these companies have.

Programmers don't like to think about this, and like to pretend that this technology is neutral and that we can use it regardless of the underlying ideology. This is completely burying our heads in the sand.

I'm just not interested in participating in any of this.

#noAI

Show threadgaytabase2d ago
@cxiao it's just not even good at programming. i really really tried to get good results just this year and it's still shit.
Show threaddegenerating degenerate

@dysfun @cxiao

It's complicated using coding AI, along with gold, it can produce shit... often because it tries to do the minimum to satisfy what you asked. So what you ask, requires some care, like a prosecution lawyer asking a hostile witness.

What you might leave unsaid, it will skip. It will leave unsaid things that it has skipped, until you ask it from a new context. For example it will be satisfied to not even build-test let alone create a meaningful test suite and confirm it before claiming everything solved.

Even when it produces something good, you have to manually iterate on it today asking a new context to do a security audit etc.

Even so... it's a huge boon once you get used to how to drive it.

Jun 15 at 3:34amWeb
Show threadgaytabase1d ago
@hopeless @cxiao no.
Show threaddegenerating degenerate21h ago
@dysfun @cxiao Good luck with that approach :)