Why AI is still dumb and not scary at all (pt. 1)

(tejo.substack.com)

63 points tejonutella | 1 comments | 08 Mar 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.448s | source

Show context

ohgr ◴[08 Mar 25 22:13 UTC] No.43304031[source]▶

Dumb stuff is what I want. Classifiers and denoise are really useful.

What I don’t want is a shitty chat bot that barely understands what you ask it and generates shitty code by sticking a corpus of shitty code together then leaving me with the unconstrained job of working out if it has any land mines in it. Then multiply that by 50 engineers. Then tell me that’s the future. Because if it is we are totally fucked. Our decline will be noted by the general decline in capacity to do anything.

replies(2): >>43304299 #>>43304430 #

einrealist ◴[08 Mar 25 23:07 UTC] No.43304430[source]▶

>>43304031 #

I asked myself this question today: Given the AI hype, I wonder whether there will be employers who force their employees to use generative AI. Otherwise employees will be deemed inefficient and be fired.

Employers might believe that not using AI puts them and their investments at a disadvantage, while ignoring the overall quality issues.

replies(1): >>43304669 #

1. throwaway85995 ◴[08 Mar 25 23:45 UTC] No.43304669[source]▶

>>43304430 #

If AI provides even a 1% productivity boost, they will, and we'll all be worse off for it when everyone forgets how to code without relying on fallible, proprietary services. Sure, local LLMs are a thing, but they currently are vastly inferior to the cloud offerings, and I don't see the status quo changing any time soon.

We all agree that employers shouldn't be allowed to force the employees to use drugs for short-term productivity boosts. I hope we'll see something similar for AI - it has the potential to be equally damaging to employees in the long term.

↑