As a non-programmer, I have zero understanding of the code and the analysis and fully rely on AI and even reviewed that AI analysis with a different AI to get the best possible solution (which was not good enough in this case).
This is the most entertaining thing I’ve read this month.
I tried asking some chimps to see if the macaques had written a New York Times best seller, if not MacBeth, yet somehow Random house wouldn’t publish my work
“I can’t sing or play any instruments, and I haven’t written any songs, but you *have* to let me join your band”
“i’m a lawyer i will file a CoC complaint”
yeah someone elsewhere on awful linked issue a few days ago, and throughout many of his posts he pulls that kind of stunt the moment he gets called on his shit
he also wrote a 21.KiB screed very huffily saying one of the projects’ CoC has failed him
long may his PRs fail
The headlines said that 30% of code at Microsoft was AI now! Huge if true!
Something like MS word has like 20-50 million lines of code. MS altogether probably has like a billion lines of code. 30% of that being AI generated is infeasible given the timeframe. People just ate this shit up. AI grifting is so fucking easy.
30% of code is standard boilerplate: setters, getters, etc that my IDE builds for me without calling it AI. It’s possible the claim is true, but it’s terribly misleading at best.
- Perhaps you didn’t read the linked article. Nadella didn’t claim that 30% of MS’s code was written by AI. What he said was garbled up to the eventual headline.
- We don’t have to play devil’s advocate for a hyped-up headline that misquotes what an AI glazer said, dawg.
- “Existing code generation codes can write 30%” doesn’t imply that AI possibly/plausibly wrote 30% of MS’s code. There’s no logical connection. Please dawg, I beg you, think critically about this.
Arguments against misinformation aren’t arguments against the subject of the misinformation, they’re just more misinformation.
??? I’d ask you what this even means but the most recent posts in your history equivocate painstakingly decompiling N64 games with utilizing AI slop generators because… you think Nintendo doesn’t get paid in both cases??? so you seem very at home posting fucking nonsense
…wat
Man trust me you don’t want them. I’ve seen people submit ChatGPT generated code and even generated the PR comment with ChatGPT. Horrendous shit.
The maintainers of
curlrecently announced any bug reports generated by AI need a human to actually prove it’s real. They cited a deluge of reports generated by AI that claim to have found bugs in functions and libraries which don’t even exist in the codebase.Today the CISO of the company I work for suggested that we should get qodo.ai because it would “… help the developers improve code quality.”
I wish I was making this up.
My boss is obsessed with Claude and ChatGPT, and loves to micromanage. Typically, if there’s an issue with what a client is requesting, I’ll approach him with:
- What the issue is
- At least two possible solutions or alternatives we can offer
He will then, almost always, ask if I’ve checked with the AI. I’ll say no. He’ll then send me chunks of unusable code that the AI has spat out, which almost always perfectly illuminate the first point I just explained to him.
It’s getting very boring dealing with the roboloving freaks.
90% of developers are so bad, that even ChatGPT 3.5 is much better.
wow 90%, do you have actual studies to back up that number you’re about to claim you didn’t just pull out of your ass?
This reminds me of another post I’d read, “Hey, wait – is employee performance really Gaussian distributed??”.
There’s this phenomenon when you’re an interviewer at a decently-funded start-up where you take a ton of interviews and say “OMG developers are so bad”. But you’ve mistakenly defined “developer” as “person who applies for a developer job”. GPT3.5 is certainly better at solving interview questions than 90% of the people who apply. But it’s worse than the people who actually pass the interview. (In part because the interview is more than just implementing a standard interview problem.)
your post has done a significantly better job of understanding the issue than a rather-uncomfortably-large amount of programming.dev posters we get, and that’s refreshing!
and, yep
I moderately regret this post
because the counterposter in question went on to have some decidedly “fucking ugggggggh” posts
ah well. so we learn.
Hot take, people will look back on anyone who currently codes, as we look back on the NASA programmers who got the equipment and people to the moon.
They won’t understand how they did so much with so little. You’re all gourmet chefs in a future of McDonalds.
Nah, we’re plumbers in an age where everyone has decided to DIY their septic system.
Please, by all means, keep it up.
