The conversation

Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

This reads less like an observation about AI and more like someone who thinks very highly of their …

This reads less like an observation about AI and more like someone who thinks very highly of their own judgment and coding ability. Over the years I’ve worked with a few engineers who talked this way. Ironically, they often ended up being a bigger drag on the team than the “lower skilled” developers they looked down on. Dismissing entire groups of engineers rarely produces much insight. My experience is that the loudest voices tend to be at the extremes. One side treats LLMs as magic and attributes every productivity gain to AI. The other contributes little beyond “LLMs are garbage and make mistakes.” Neither position is particularly useful. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle. LLMs are genuinely helpful for many tasks and can make good engineers more productive. They also make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, and still require judgment, design skills, and review. Most engineers I know who use them regularly seem to understand both sides of that tradeoff.

Original discussionGoogle Employees Internally Share Memes About How Its AI Sucks104 source comments · at import
2

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

TI

In my experience it's the poorest programmers who thrive with LLMs, because it levels them up. They lacked the skills to design and write quality code before AI, and now they feel like they can compete. They get a computer to write all their code and get to attach their name to it. That's why you see such pushback against AI critics from a vocal subset of engineers; they're the ones who weren't very good. The engineers who critique AI are the ones who see the garbage code the LLMs write. Just look at the source dump for Claude Code; that code was a rat's nest of epic proportions.

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

NO

I think the people with extreme positions are often the most useful because they get closer to the source of the argument. Extreme boosters of ai often want to either bypass developing skills to advance their careers or want to exploit what they perceive to be overpaid labor. Extreme pessimists tend to value skill and autonomy and distrust the people with power above them in the hierarchy. They also may identify with their skills and feel existentially threatened by a society that is rapidly devaluing them. Framing this disagreement as a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical capacity and appropriate use cases, for me, completely misses the plot. Both sides have compelling reasons for their beliefs and the cold rational analysis of the tech is as likely to further entrench the extremes as it is to enlighten. I will also note that in your comment, you lament the dismissal of entire…

Full original
CL

It’s the on off programming of our society, or left vs right. Apparently, some people think in only black or white.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.