Technology

81162 readers

3674 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

1027

I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right. (open.substack.com)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

274 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I'm just sharing this because I found it insightful.

The author describes himself as a "fractional CTO"(no clue what that means, don't ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):

I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.

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.

Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -8 points 2 months ago (7 children)

And then there are actual good developers who could or would tell you that LLMs can be useful for coding

The only people who believe that are managers and bad developers.

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

You’re wrong, whether you figure that out now or later. Using an LLM where you gatekeep every write is something that good developers have started doing. The most senior engineers I work with are the ones who have adopted the most AI into their workflow, and with the most care. There’s a difference between vibe coding and responsible use.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

There’s a difference between vibe coding and responsible use.

There's also a difference between the occasional evening getting drunk and alcoholism. That doesn't make an occasional event healthy, nor does it mean you are qualified to drive a car in that state.

People who use LLMs in production code are - by definition - not "good developers". Because:

a good developer has a clear grasp on every single instruction in the code - and critically reviewing code generated by someone else is more effort than writing it yourself
pushing code to production without critical review is grossly negligent and compromises data & security

This already means the net gain with use of LLMs is negative. Can you use it to quickly push out some production code & impress your manager? Possibly. Will it be efficient? It might be. Will it be bug-free and secure? You'll never know until shit hits the fan.

Also: using LLMs to generate code, a dev will likely be violating copyrights of open source left and right, effectively copy-pasting licensed code from other people without attributing authorship, i.e. they exhibit parasitic behavior & outright violate laws. Furthermore the stuff that applies to all users of LLMs applies:

they contribute to the hype, fucking up our planet, causing brain rot and skill loss on average, and pumping hardware prices to insane heights.

[–] theterrasque 0 points 2 months ago

You're pushing code to prod without pr's and code reviews? What kind of jank-ass cowboy shop are you running?

It doesn't matter if an llm or a human wrote it, it needs peer review, unit tests and go through QA before it gets anywhere near production.

load more comments (4 replies)