Incredible. Every Single Take on AI is Wrong.

For the past 6 months, I've been reading on-and-off the flurry of blog posts and articles written by very experienced software developers on AI, and the overwhelming feeling I get is, that they are all wrong.

I don't have the inclination to write a treatise countering all the things people are saying, but I do have three articles for which I want to simply document agree/disagree on the various points being made. If only to document my own beliefs, so I can check a year or so in the future and check how badly I was off.

My AI Skeptic Friends Are All Nuts

This article is divided into sections, which is very convenient.

1. level setting — agree, you have to re-evaluate because LLMs have drastically improved this year
2. the positive case — agree, this is probably the strongest argument for LLM-assisted coding
3. but you have no idea what the code is — mostly agree, you must read all the code
4. but hallucination — idiotic argument
5. but the code is shitty, like that of a junior developer — idiotic argument #2
6. but it’s bad at rust — what even is this saying? wrong.
7. but the craft — applies only in some situations, and author doesn't see that
8. but the mediocrity — same as 7
9. but it’ll never be AGI — agree
10. but they take-rr jerbs — presented annoyingly, but directionally correct. there are always more things for people to do.
11. but the plagiarism ­— offtopic, and the author should not have delved into this at all
12. positive case redux — ah now your motte becomes clear, and it's bullshit. social pressure does not an argument make.
13. but i’m tired of hearing about it — oh please just... no

Overall, garbage article. Don't read it, except maybe sections 1, 2, 3, 9.

Contra Ptacek's Terrible Article On AI

 This is a response to the previous article. As you might guess, I disagree with this one too.

1. Immediate Red Flags — disagree, over-generalizing, nit-picking
2. Trash-Tier Ethics — agree! but also tbf, copyright has nothing to do with ethics. it is not a natural law.
3. Why The Appeals To Random Friends? — too long, but yeah same argument as me
4. Is AI Getting The Right Level Of Attention? — TOO LONG, but agreed
5. These Executives Are Grifting Or Incompetent — over-generalized again, but this is true of some execs, yes
6. Killing Strawmen — agree, same argument as me stated differently
7. Why The Half-Hearted Defense Of Artists? — offtopic, i will ignore again

Overall, fine, more like a rant than anything else, and doesn't acknowledge the correct parts of the first article, which is a shame. But I guess most people on the internet write when they feel strongly about something, and that cannot lead to good analysis.

AI Mania Is Eviscerating Global Decision-Making

Same author again. Same problem of writing only when he feels strongly on a subject, and making too many generalizations. Let's <ol> again:

1. AI Investments Are Generally Total Failures — agree, although many people will correctly disagree because it does not apply to their AI investments because it generalizes too much
2. Heretics Will Be Shot — only at some high-profile large companies, again generalizing from his own experience without trying to understand the shape of his filter-bubble
3. AI Demos Are The Mind-Killer — agree on the facts, but get off your high-horse. your refusal to take money just tells me you're living in luxury and nothing else.
4. Executives, Game Theory, and The Emperor’s Clothes — good, concise, and correct. this is how every single hype cycle in big tech functions. burn this in your memory, and see it happen every decade.
5. You Must Be This AI-Native To Ride —  only applicable to big tech. this sort of dumb thinking is actually good for the rest of us. if big tech didn't have dozens of achilles' heels like this, they would be unstoppable.
6. Navigating AI Mania — obviously correct, unless some architectural change happens in LLMs that drastically improves their real-world capabilities, not just in benchmarks

Overall a good article, you should read it, and skim when it gets too verbose and makes sweeping generalizations.

I just recalled, there is a good article on AI-assisted coding that I think everyone should read. And it's this one by danluu: https://danluu.com/ai-coding/ . I generally agree with everything listed in it, with reservations around the "no code review" parts.

You might notice that I didn't talk about any articles that are frothing-at-the-mouth regarding AI (in either direction). Those people aren't worth reading at all.

Well that's all I had folks. Hope you enjoyed this.