Think in terms of any other algorithm. If someone said they use a particular algorithm for everything, that would be a bad programmer. But if someone else said they would never ever use a particular algorithm because it’s the tool of the devil, would that be a good programmer.
Software engineering is about knowing when an algorithm should be used and where it shouldn’t be used. LLMs don’t change that, it’s just another algorithm. The engineer should make the decision not marketing hype. But the decision should also not be made by reactionaries.
Well yea I wouldn’t expect it to help in most situations. Lemmy is a dangerous place for people like you. It rewards bullshit nonesense you just made up be careful out there you may confronted with a real problem one day these delusions will make you think you can handle it.
I think the vitriol around AI has crossed into moral absolutism for a lot of people. There are legitimate criticisms of AI, but “AI can be harmful” does not logically mean “all AI use is unethical” or “AI has no useful purpose.” Treating every use as morally equivalent is just hasty generalization and guilt by association.
At some point, “AI is bad” stops being a conclusion and becomes a sacred value. Then useful examples are not considered on their merits, they are dismissed because they threaten the moral position. You can criticize harmful uses of AI without pretending the technology itself has no legitimate use.
Why do we all have to be morally homogenous? I use AI tools, but I understand that a “morally absolutist” take from someone who doesnt use it or see the value, and who places a lot of value on, say the environmental or social cost, can be reasonable. I also eat meat but understand that some people have a reasonable argument for totally avoiding it. The messyness is human.
They are all some binary file that completes a task. That LLMs have a statistically derived “personality” (if one would be dangerous enough to call it that) to make people like them was a purposeful mistake in development to trick people into embracing the technology. LLM is non-deterministic by nature which means results can never be trusted.
Honestly, the Photoshop filter analogy may be wrong because the filter is deterministic. The same settings produce the same results every time as it is math on an image file. LLMs literally can’t do that.
LLM tech is only seeing more “reliable” results now as they often throw the tool against a sandbox environment where it has to execute deterministic code to compensate for the random unreliability, and it still screws up.
Linus knows code, the tool sped up his process. In the absence of his knowledge, it would be useless.
Neat toy, but way too inefficient to bank the future on, and very dangerous to have such a religious reaction to.
Some of a bitch!
Just a few days ago, I argued with a douche nozzle who told me, with the confidence of a master debater, that AI has no useful purpose.
But apparently, not all of you feel that way. Linus uses AI and suddenly y’all change your tune! What a load of crap!
I’ve been sitting here saying for years that AI is a tool and should be used as such, while getting called a tech-bro simp for saying it.
Man, this has once again revealed the massive, two-faced, bandwagon nature of Lemmy.
Y’all should have stayed on Reddit!
Who’s changing their tune?
LLM is just an algorithm.
Think in terms of any other algorithm. If someone said they use a particular algorithm for everything, that would be a bad programmer. But if someone else said they would never ever use a particular algorithm because it’s the tool of the devil, would that be a good programmer.
Software engineering is about knowing when an algorithm should be used and where it shouldn’t be used. LLMs don’t change that, it’s just another algorithm. The engineer should make the decision not marketing hype. But the decision should also not be made by reactionaries.
Pseudo intellectual bullshit is not helping your case.
Anti-intellectualism doesn’t help yours.
Well yea I wouldn’t expect it to help in most situations. Lemmy is a dangerous place for people like you. It rewards bullshit nonesense you just made up be careful out there you may confronted with a real problem one day these delusions will make you think you can handle it.
Were you perhapse… talking to different people?
I think the vitriol around AI has crossed into moral absolutism for a lot of people. There are legitimate criticisms of AI, but “AI can be harmful” does not logically mean “all AI use is unethical” or “AI has no useful purpose.” Treating every use as morally equivalent is just hasty generalization and guilt by association.
At some point, “AI is bad” stops being a conclusion and becomes a sacred value. Then useful examples are not considered on their merits, they are dismissed because they threaten the moral position. You can criticize harmful uses of AI without pretending the technology itself has no legitimate use.
Why do we all have to be morally homogenous? I use AI tools, but I understand that a “morally absolutist” take from someone who doesnt use it or see the value, and who places a lot of value on, say the environmental or social cost, can be reasonable. I also eat meat but understand that some people have a reasonable argument for totally avoiding it. The messyness is human.
LLMs are akin to fancy Photoshop filters for code. They can be used well by professionals and terrible by n00bs.
They are but a (very inefficient) tool.
No. That’s… That’s completely wrong.
It is amazing how y’all don’t know how any of this tech works.
Linus Torvalds used it to fix some code but it’s like a Photoshop filter? Come on man… You can’t be that intentionally ignorant.
Go do some research. Jesus.
Look I’m not some kind of supporter or fan boy but even I know how utterly reductive and incorrect what you said is.
They are all some binary file that completes a task. That LLMs have a statistically derived “personality” (if one would be dangerous enough to call it that) to make people like them was a purposeful mistake in development to trick people into embracing the technology. LLM is non-deterministic by nature which means results can never be trusted.
Honestly, the Photoshop filter analogy may be wrong because the filter is deterministic. The same settings produce the same results every time as it is math on an image file. LLMs literally can’t do that.
LLM tech is only seeing more “reliable” results now as they often throw the tool against a sandbox environment where it has to execute deterministic code to compensate for the random unreliability, and it still screws up.
Linus knows code, the tool sped up his process. In the absence of his knowledge, it would be useless.
Neat toy, but way too inefficient to bank the future on, and very dangerous to have such a religious reaction to.
You clearly don’t understand what an analogy is.
Maybe if you’d stop using AI for all mental activities you’d fucking understand that
What you said isn’t an analogy… What?