There's a bit of drama going on with the popular game manager Lutris right now, with users pointing out the developer using AI generated code via Claude.
An incompetent human is better than throwing a bunch of dice and hoping that it’s the answer. An engineer that tells me that instead of using a hammer, they shoot a hole in the wall with a gun because it makes it easier to put a nail in, is not an engineer but a walking threat.
Also, you’re not an open source dev if you use AI, your a code ape copying and stealing unattributed code.
I think it’s better to think of AI as a nail gun. If you give a nail gun to an idiot, they will ruin your project much quicker than they would with a hammer. But in the right hands, a nail gun is very effective. You blame the person, not the tool.
The responsibility still falls on my shoulders. If I merge the code the LLM presents to me without reading it, I’m the one getting fired, not the LLM. Anyone who’s merging Claude’s code without understanding it is dumb.
No because the nail gun is a proper tool that has been made properly.
But actually thanks for making me think about it, because my example is inaccurate. It’s not like shooting in the wall, but more like giving a gun to a trained monkey and telling it to shoot at the wall.
Sure, you can wear a helmet and tell people to duck so they don’t get shot, and sure it is easier than using a hammer yourself.
However everyone would agree that it’s stupid as fuck.
LLMs don’t understand code. They don’t understand anything at all, to be exact.
So why on earth would you give to a tool that has the sole purpose of bullshitting convincingly, the task of doing skilled labor on complex systems?
Also, in your example, a nailgun would be a framework or whatever, that is making your job easier. It still has to be reliable. In no way could AI be likened to that.
An incompetent human is better than throwing a bunch of dice and hoping that it’s the answer. An engineer that tells me that instead of using a hammer, they shoot a hole in the wall with a gun because it makes it easier to put a nail in, is not an engineer but a walking threat.
Also, you’re not an open source dev if you use AI, your a code ape copying and stealing unattributed code.
I think it’s better to think of AI as a nail gun. If you give a nail gun to an idiot, they will ruin your project much quicker than they would with a hammer. But in the right hands, a nail gun is very effective. You blame the person, not the tool.
The responsibility still falls on my shoulders. If I merge the code the LLM presents to me without reading it, I’m the one getting fired, not the LLM. Anyone who’s merging Claude’s code without understanding it is dumb.
No because the nail gun is a proper tool that has been made properly.
But actually thanks for making me think about it, because my example is inaccurate. It’s not like shooting in the wall, but more like giving a gun to a trained monkey and telling it to shoot at the wall.
Sure, you can wear a helmet and tell people to duck so they don’t get shot, and sure it is easier than using a hammer yourself. However everyone would agree that it’s stupid as fuck.
LLMs don’t understand code. They don’t understand anything at all, to be exact.
So why on earth would you give to a tool that has the sole purpose of bullshitting convincingly, the task of doing skilled labor on complex systems?
Also, in your example, a nailgun would be a framework or whatever, that is making your job easier. It still has to be reliable. In no way could AI be likened to that.
Idk, but I bet if you gave an LLM to a monkey it would still build better software than Microsoft.