Post #38813
2025-12-07 16:59 UTC
Replies (36)
-
@just_another_person@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 17:00
No shit
-
@CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 17:16
Something any (real, trained, educated) developer who has even touched AI in their career could have told you.
-
@edgemaster72@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 17:19
Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. And all they’ll hear is “not failure, metrics great, ship faster, productive” and go against your advice because who cares about three months later, that’s next quarter, line must go up now. I also found this bit funny: I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me… I was proud of what I’d created. Well you didn’t create it, you said so yourself, not sure why you’d be proud, it’s almost like the conclusion should’ve been blindingly obvious right there.
-
@KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 17:38
My big fear with this stuff is security. It just seems so “easy”, without knowledgeable people, for AI to write a product that functions from a user perspective but is wide open to attack.
-
@ignirtoq@feddit.online 2025-12-07 17:46
We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share. Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is “in 10 years we’ll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently.” In their roadmap, there won’t be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI. What’s most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse. “Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
-
@Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2025-12-07 17:56
I did see someone write a post about Chat Oriented Programming, to me that appeared successful, but not without cost and extra care. [checkeagle.com/…/a-month-of-chat-oriented-program…](Original Link,) Discussion Thread Successful in that it wrote code faster and its output stuck to conventions better than the author would. But they had to watch it like a hawk and with the discipline of a senior developer putting full attention over a junior, stop and swear at it every time it ignored the rules that they give at the beginning of each session, terminate the session when it starts doing a autocompactification routine that wastes your money and makes Claude forget everything. And you try to dump what it has completed each time. One of the costs seem to be the sanity of the developer, so I really question if it’s a sustainable way of doing things from both the model side and from developers. To be actually successful you need to know what you’re doing otherwise it’s easy to fall in a trap like the CTO, trusting the AI’s assertions that everything is hunky-dory.
-
@flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 2025-12-07 17:58
“fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me) For those who were also interested to find out this means: Consultant and advisor in a part time role, paid to make decisions that would usually fall under the scope of a CTO, but for smaller companies who can’t afford a full-time experienced CTO
-
@ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2025-12-07 18:22
They shipped a product in 3 months? What the fuck was it? New “under construction” page?
-
@PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 18:36
Wasn’t this obvious? He didn’t need to go “all-in on ai” cause there is hundreds of thousands of people who tried the same thing already and everyone of them could tell him that’s not what ai can do.
-
@dsilverz@calckey.world 2025-12-07 19:30
@AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world @technology@lemmy.world I used to deal with programming since I was 9 y.o., with my professional career in DevOps starting several years later, in 2013. I dealt with lots of other's code, legacy code, very shitty code (especially done by my "managers" who cosplayed as programmers), and tons of technical debts. Even though I'm quite of a LLM power-user (because I'm a person devoid of other humans in my daily existence), I never relied on LLMs to "create" my code: rather, what I did a lot was tinkering with different LLMs to "analyze" my own code that I wrote myself, both to experiment with their limits (e.g.: I wrote a lot of cryptic, code-golf one-liners and fed it to the LLMs in order to test their ability to "connect the dots" on whatever was happening behind the cryptic syntax) and to try and use them as a pair of external eyes beyond mine (due to their ability to "connect the dots", and by that I mean their ability, as fancy Markov chains, to relate tokens to other tokens with similar semantic proximity). I did test them (especially Claude/Sonnet) for their "ability" to output code, not intending to use the code because I'm better off writing my own thing, but you likely know the maxim, one can't criticize what they don't know. And I tried to know them so I could criticize them. To me, the code is.. pretty readable. Definitely awful code, but readable nonetheless. So, when the person says...The developers can’t debug code they didn’t write. ...even though they argue they have more than 25 years of experience, it feels to me like they don't. One thing is saying "developers find it pretty annoying to debug code they didn't write", a statement that I'd totally agree! It's awful to try to debug other's (human or otherwise) code, because you need to try to put yourself on their shoes without knowing how their shoes are... But it's doable, especially by people who deal with programming logic since their childhood. Saying "developers can't debug code they didn't write", to me, seems like a layperson who doesn't belong to the field of Computer Science, doesn't like programming, and/or only pursued a "software engineer" career purely because of money/capitalistic mindset. Either way, if a developer can't debug other's code, sorry to say, but they're not developers! Don't take me wrong: I'm not intending to be prideful or pretending to be awesome, this is beyond my person, I'm nothing, I'm no one. I abandoned my career, because I hate the way the technology is growing more and more enshittified. Working as a programmer for capitalistic purposes ended up depleting the joy I used to have back when I coded in a daily basis. I'm not on the "job market" anymore, so what I'm saying is based on more than 10 years of former professional experience. And my experience says: a developer that can't put themselves into at least trying to understand the worst code out there can't call themselves a developer, full stop.
-
@rimu@piefed.social 2025-12-07 19:58
FYI this article is written with a LLM.
-
@jaykrown@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 20:01
I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. Who is really saying 100% AI adoption is a good idea though? All I hear about from everyone is how it’s not a good idea, just like this post.
-
@jaykrown@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 20:02
I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. Wouldn’t the point be to use AI to make the change, if you’re trying to do it 100% with AI? Who is really saying 100% AI adoption is a good idea though? All I hear about from everyone is how it’s not a good idea, just like this post.
-
@kreskin@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 20:27
I work in an company who is all-in on selling AI and we are trying desperately to use this AI ourselves. We’ve concluded internally that AI can only be trusted with small use cases that are easily validated by humans, or for fast prototyping work… hack day stuff to validate a possibility but not an actual a high quality safe and scalable implementation, or in writing tests of existing code, to increase test coverage (yes, I know thats a bad idea but QA blessed the result… so uh … cool). The use case we zeroed in on is writing well schema'd configs in yaml or json. Even then, a good percentage of the time the AI will miss very significant mandatory sections, or add hallucinations that are unrelated to the task at hand. We then can use AI to test AI's work, several times using several AIs. And to a degree, it'll catch a lot of the issues, but not all. So we then code review and lint with code we wrote that AI never touched, and send all the erroring configs to a human. It does work, but cant be used for mission critical applications. And nothing about the AI or the process of using it is free. Its also disturbingly not idempotent. Did it fail? Run it again a few times and it'll pass. We think it still saves money when done at scale, but not as much as we promise external AI consumers. The Senior leadership know its currently overhyped trash and pressure us to use it anyway on expectations it'll improve in the future, so we give the mandatory crisp salute of alignment and we're off. I will say its great for writing reviews. It adds nonsense and doesnt get the whole review correct, but it writes very flowery stuff so managers dont have to. So we use it for first drafts and then remove a lot of the true BS out of it. If it gets stuff wrong, oh well, human perception is flawed.
-
@Jankatarch__dup_7750@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 20:55
CTO… Chief Technical Officer!??
-
@m3t00@piefed.world 2025-12-07 21:20
ask your ai pal for help
-
@vpol@feddit.uk 2025-12-07 21:20
The developers can’t debug code they didn’t write. This is a bit of a stretch.
-
@HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 2025-12-07 21:31
Computers are too powerful and too cheap. Bring back COBOL, painfully expensive CPU time, and some sort of basic knowledge of what’s actually going on. Pain for everyone!
-
@raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 22:30
So there’s actual developers who could tell you from the start that LLMs are useless for coding, and then there’s this moron & similar people who first have to fuck up an ecosystem before believing the obvious. Thanks fuckhead for driving RAM prices through the ceiling… And for wasting energy and water.
-
@SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 23:12
Just sell it to AI customers for AI cash.
-
@Unlearned9545@lemmy.world 2025-12-07 23:54
Fractional CTO: Some small companies benefit from the senior experience of these kinds of executives but don’t have the money or the need to hire one full time. A fraction of the time they are C suite for various companies.
-
@Rhoeri@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 00:47
AI is hot garbage and anyone using it is a skillless hack. This will never not be true.
-
@dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2025-12-08 00:57
and in order for ai to do that, it has to employ strategy and resource management. Good luck
-
@pdxfed@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 01:23
Great article, brave and correct. Good luck getting the same leaders who blindly believe in a magical trend for this or next quarters numbers; they don’t care about things a year away let alone 10. I work in HR and was stuck by the parallel between management jobs being gutted by major corps starting in the 80s and 90s during “downsizing” who either never replaced them or offshore them. They had the Big 4 telling them it was the future of business. Know who is now providing consultation to them on why they have poor ops, processes, high turnover, etc? Take $ on the way in, and the way out. AI is just the next in long line of smart people pretending they know your business while you abdicate knowing your business or employees. Hope leaders can be a bit braver and wiser this go 'round so we don’t get to a cliffs edge in software.
-
@ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works 2025-12-08 01:44
This has not been my experience at all. I have a top rated VR app and use AI to code everything and change things all the time. It is not hard to understand the code and then prompt the AI to change this or that and then test to see if it got it right. If it did not, just prompt again to address. Maybe this does not work for the author or others, but it has saved my hundreds of hours in my small app.
-
@deathbird@mander.xyz 2025-12-08 04:53
I think this kinda points to why AI is pretty decent for short videos, photos, and texts. It produces outputs that one applies meaning to, and humans are meaning making animals. A computer can’t overlook or rationalize a coding error the same way.
-
@Suffa@lemmy.wtf 2025-12-08 07:57
AI is really great for small apps. I’ve saved so many hours over weekends that would otherwise be spent coding a small thing I need a few times whereas now I can get an AI to spit it out for me. But anything big and it’s fucking stupid, it cannot track large projects at all.
-
@Agent641@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 08:43
I cannot understand and debug code written by AI. But I also cannot understand and debug code written by me. Let’s just call it even.
-
@Evotech@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 14:15
Just ask the ai to make the change?
-
@dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 16:35
To quote your quote: I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it. I think the author just independently rediscovered “middle management”. Indeed, when you delegate the gruntwork under your responsibility, those same people are who you go to when addressing bugs and new requirements. It’s not on you to effect repairs: it’s on your team. I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise. The idea that relying on AI to do nuanced work like this and arrive at the exact correct answer to the problem, is naive at best. I’d be sweating too.
-
@lepinkainen@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 16:41
Same thing would happen if they were a non-coder project manager or designer for a team of actual human progress. Stuff done, shipped and working. “But I can’t understand the code 😭”, yes. You were the project manager why should you?
-
@Nalivai@lemmy.world 2025-12-08 21:02
They never actually say what “product” do they make, it’s always “shipped product” like they’re fucking amazon warehouse. I suspect because it’s some trivial webpage that takes an afternoon for a student to ship up, that they spent three days arguing with an autocomplete to shit out.
-
@lorski@sopuli.xyz 2025-12-08 21:14
This is spot on.
-
@phed@lemmy.ml 2025-12-09 02:10
I do a lot with AI but it is not good enough to replace humans, not even close. It repeats the same mistakes after you tell it no, it doesn’t remember things from 3 messages ago when it should. You have to keep re-explaining the goal to it. It’s wholey incompetant. And yea when you have it do stuff you aren’t familiar with or don’t create, def. I have it write a commentary, or I take the time out right then to ask it what x or y does then I add a comment.
-
@minorkeys@lemmy.world 2025-12-09 04:40
It looks like a rigid design philosophy that must completely rebuild for any change. If the speed of production becomes fast enough, and the cost low enough, iterating the entire program for every change would become feasible and cost effective.
-
@DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2025-12-09 14:31
Personally I tried using LLMs for reading error logs and summarizing what’s going on. I can say that even with somewhat complex errors, they were almost always right and very helpful. So basically the general consensus of using them as assistants within a narrow scope. Though it should also be noted that I only did this at work. While it seems to work well, I think I’d still limit such use in personal projects, since I want to keep learning more, and private projects are generally much more enjoyable to work on. Another interesting use case I can highlight is using a chatbot as documentation when the actual documentation is horrible. However, this only works within the same ecosystem, so for instance Copilot with MS software. Microsoft definitely trained Copilot on its own stuff and it’s often considerably more helpful than the docs.