There’s a lot to hate about AI but for me, it’s like the owner of the site says, it’s the fact that people don’t use AI as a tool but use it to produce crap because the people who are using it has no clue about the software and techniques behind it and have no desire to learn. We’re losing institutional knowledge and the passions behind it, which is not good in the long term.
Losing knowledge, discouraging future experiments from future “junior” developers, and AIs relying on that knowledge fixed in time is the worst that can happen to software development. I’m usually a positive guy, but I don’t see how it can be good for the future.
Yeah…I really like AI, it’s such a fun tool to build things with. It’s like magic
But I don’t know how we’re going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works
In a statement posted on the site’s homepage, @encounter notes that while they don’t believe AI is the main issue in itself, because when used properly and ethically it “can expedite the decompilation process in a significant way”, the “community aspect of decompilation has been broken” by people using AI in more questionable ways.
If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don’t use it incorrectly, then there’s no justification for continued use of the tool.
I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round.
It’s not the tech that’s the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable.
LLM/ML tech is the future, it’s not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close.
Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level.
In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you’re waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you’ll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn’t the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn’t going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly.
When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren’t worth the cost, it doesn’t need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can’t make money off of it.
We don’t hate AI enough.
There’s a lot to hate about AI but for me, it’s like the owner of the site says, it’s the fact that people don’t use AI as a tool but use it to produce crap because the people who are using it has no clue about the software and techniques behind it and have no desire to learn. We’re losing institutional knowledge and the passions behind it, which is not good in the long term.
Nor good for who. When people can’t put on their pants without AI and they start charging 1000 a month. I’d that is even enough they are golden.
Losing knowledge, discouraging future experiments from future “junior” developers, and AIs relying on that knowledge fixed in time is the worst that can happen to software development. I’m usually a positive guy, but I don’t see how it can be good for the future.
Yeah…I really like AI, it’s such a fun tool to build things with. It’s like magic
But I don’t know how we’re going to make new senior devs like this. The baby coders are being deprived of opportunities to go through all the trials by fire that give you the intuitive understanding of how software works
If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don’t use it incorrectly, then there’s no justification for continued use of the tool.
I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round.
It’s not the tech that’s the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable.
LLM/ML tech is the future, it’s not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close.
Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level.
In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you’re waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you’ll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn’t the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn’t going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly.
This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve.
It’s not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology.
When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren’t worth the cost, it doesn’t need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can’t make money off of it.
Just look at the gaming subs celebrating this.
G*mers are a bunch of troglodytes.