Yes, just file a ticket and let the people with relevant expertise and context handle it - obviously. Do software engineers ask Claude for recommendations on handling network outages and bug IT with “AI” slop? Do accountants bring “AI” slop advice to electricians wiring a building? Do lawyers use Claude to try helping physicians diagnose illnesses?
By providing a bad “AI” slop solution that you can’t evaluate, you’re actually creating more work for the people responsible for doing the thing. Now they have to understand the slop you’ve given them, explain why it’s wrong/won’t fit in the existing architecture/has other issue you can’t see without deep context. Or, they have to play politics to ignore your slop without angering you and creating more problems down the line. Either way, it’s harder than just letting them do their job.
Interesting. I feel the same way about Medium - it’s mostly a bunch of undergrads and tech bootcamp students regurgitating basic tutorials.
But in my experience, Substack is much higher quality. I actually read several Substack blogs regularly because they’re better and more consistent than most blogs I come across. YMMV, I guess, but I have at least half a dozen blogs I actively follow on Substack, compared to maybe 1 elsewhere.
If a lot of people make the same claim, then from their perspective, you’re the one with a “wildly different” experience. What makes you so certain your experience generalizes to “most people’s experiences”?
You don’t “need” any LLMs to do software development. Plenty of us were productively writing code for years before these models were released, and many of us continue to do so. The “AI” companies want to sell you hype. But you don’t “need” them - not if you’re a legit, professional programmer.
The narrative that LLMs are essential to the future of the trade often feels like an assault on my professional expertise.
Whatever your experience is, mine is that LLMs don't work well for software development. I wish people who use AI would be more willing take that perspective seriously.
I did actually reply to a few of the threads there. I think you'd find more perspective in reading the article and the author is also there talking about it.
You could say this for any new technology though, it's a vacuous statement. No one needs a car, they can ride a horse. But step changes in technology do occur and raise the standard for everyone in a society, hence why we don't see horses for transportation anymore.
You don’t need it, but using it would make you more productive. As an example, I have worked in a code base which is pretty much opinionated. I have many Claude skills to build the boiler plate starting code and tests for the feature I have to build following the existing conventions and patterns in the code base and that saves a lot of manual coding time for me.
This is a very personalised use case, but I think everyone can find these kind of use cases that saves a lot of time for you.
I have been programming for 35 years and a professional programmer for 25 years. Of course I don't NEED AI to program, because I did it before.
This is completely unrelated to the how useful AI is for programming or how much more efficient you can be with it.
I never said you would need AI to do things you can do today. When I said it will not be 'all you ever need', my point is that NEW uses will come that will need more powerful AI. By definition, you can't NEED a new technology to do something that is already being done, because the fact that it is being done already proves you can do it without the new tech. However, that doesn't mean the tech can't do something new that does need the tech.
For example, no one needed an airplane before they were invented. However, you do need an airplane if you want to get somewhere 6000 miles away in less than a day.
There hasn't been a single bit of technology that is 'needed' if you use your strict definition of the word, because obviously humans existed and survived before the technology existed. Being absolutely necessary is not what makes a technology persist or spread, that is an artificial bar to reach.
Some people have such a natural aversion to LLMs that they will make incoherent arguments as to why they should go away. There are plenty of legitimate concerns and critiques of LLMs, you don't need to articulate arguments that you would never make about any other piece of technology to argue against their usage.
I definitely did not have any anger when I typed that, although I do admit I have a lot of confusion now. I have no idea how my message could come across as angry, even re-reading it now a day later. I also don't think you seem like some sort of anti-AI zealot, so it confuses me even more that you would say nothing I said makes any sense.
If you have interest, I would love to understand why what I said didn't make any sense, or why you think I sound angry.
In what world is rent lower than mortgage? Part of the reason my fiancé and I bought a house is because it was cheaper than renting. Not just long-term, but our monthly payment is actually noticeably lower.
Of course, we did need to pay a down payment. But if you amortize that over a 30 year mortgage period, we’re still better off buying than renting.
Zero. Like in zero places would rent be less than a mortgage unless somehow the landlord was making 0, and then at that it would be the same price as a mortgage but without the risk of being locked in for 30 years.
Funny enough, I see it the exact opposite. LLM slop code degrades software quality. While one person may appear to move quickly, the software quality suffers dramatically. It takes them (or other team members) more time to fix the issues than it would have to just do it right the first time.
I mean, even with the advent of “AI” agents, is software today any better than it was 3 years ago?
I think teams embracing too much LLM coding are going to see a continued decrease in quality and a massive drop in team productivity. Godot, on the other hand, is avoiding this. While it might not be as trendy, I think it’ll be a competitive advantage in the long term.
I don't know about large teams or companies. I feel more confident with the conjecture: Conditioned on small teams, a team of seniors with AI coding beats a team of junior with AI coding by a wide margin, in my experience.
When accounting for "coding taste," I think there is equal or higher quality output over small teams, and if there is a decrease in software quality, it's nowhere near the implied amount (5-10% at most) with a massive gain in speed (approx 3x? 4x? hard to measure). Those numbers net out positive in the end, especially as the team starts to understand and ship with AI in the loop.
Not the person you were responding to, but genuine question: How are you interacting with computers without practically ever using a mouse? And how do you expect to use CAD software without a mouse?
I have used Macbooks with good trackpads since 2003. The models from the 2008 unibody Macbook and onwards are so very obviously superior to mice, that I simply have never wanted to use a mouse since.
My preference for mice was two-button Microsoft Mouse models (I had the magnificent early "dove bar" Microsoft mouse, which I regretfully had to replace with a 2.0 at some point). On the Mac, you only had one-button mice anyway.
For Linux I did try a nicely made Logitech three-button mouse, but ended up giving it away because some quirk of my neurology or physiology simply will not let me consistently independently address the middle button while holding or moving the mouse. I will almost always end up pressing one or other finger either side as well (sometimes enough to click it).
Scroll wheel mice are slightly better because the middle button is physically different (and often slightly raised). I do have one stored away in case I need it.
On a trackpad I do have individual fingertip tap control, for some reason.
I also use a wacom pen for photo editing, but those are not really much use for CAD. (Honestly, I don't get how people think Shapr3D is usable on the iPad with the Pencil; it is not)
For CAD: FreeCAD's "Gesture" control mode is superb! The "touchpad" control mode not bad. I've toyed with the idea of getting a Spacemouse for my left hand (or making one of the DIY ones) but I have never really felt enough need, because the Gesture mode is so fluid and instinctive.
>> Scroll wheel mice are slightly better because the middle button is physically different (and often slightly raised). I do have one stored away in case I need it.
Solvespace does great with a scroll-wheel mouse. Scroll = zoom.
I don’t like “AI”, and I don’t use it. I read lots of stories where people are forced to use it at work but don’t use it otherwise. Do you know of people who don’t think “AI” will have a positive impact on society but still choose to use it?
> Do you know of people who don’t think “AI” will have a positive impact on society but still choose to use it?
Yes. Per your previous statement, those people who are “forced” to use it at work. While it might be a requirement of their job, what job they do is usually a choice.
Regardless of American vs. British spellings, those are not the same sound. Some British people may pronounce them the same. Americans definitely pronounce them differently, though. For instance, the word “water” has a hard “r” sound at the end; Americans don’t pronounce it “watuh” like some British people do.
By providing a bad “AI” slop solution that you can’t evaluate, you’re actually creating more work for the people responsible for doing the thing. Now they have to understand the slop you’ve given them, explain why it’s wrong/won’t fit in the existing architecture/has other issue you can’t see without deep context. Or, they have to play politics to ignore your slop without angering you and creating more problems down the line. Either way, it’s harder than just letting them do their job.