Post #1944166

2026-03-02 21:33 UTC

@jcoglan @nicuveo But we can still focus on stronger arguments, the horrible ethics of it instead, the environmental cost, the bubble about to pop, etc etc :)

Replies (1)

@nicuveo@tech.lgbt 2026-03-04 12:00

@pmorinerie @jcoglan so, two things on this. On one hand: i agree! arguing against genAI / LLMs in terms of efficiency / productivity is arguing *on their terms*. it's implicitly accepting that those tools are okay to use, despite the fact that even if they were good there would still be a mountain of objections. on the other, i think you've missed the original point that OP was making. :D i don't read the original point as "LLMs are a bad layer of abstraction because they generate bad / bloated code"; i read it as "by their very nature, they are *random* processes: you cannot treat them as just another layer of abstraction, because *every output has to be reviewed*". no matter how bad a compiler is, it is predictable: sure, it will generate inefficient ASM, but it will always generate ASM the same way, while a LLM *by design* cannot.

Open ##1944167