406
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 129 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Experienced software developer, here. "AI" is useful to me in some contexts. Specifically when I want to scaffold out a completely new application (so I'm not worried about clobbering existing code) and I don't want to do it by hand, it saves me time.

And... that's about it. It sucks at code review, and will break shit in your repo if you let it.

[-] billwashere@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

Not a developer per se (mostly virtualization, architecture, and hardware) but AI can get me to 80-90% of a script in no time. The last 10% takes a while but that was going to take a while regardless. So the time savings on that first 90% is awesome. Although it does send me down a really bad path at times. Being experienced enough to know that is very helpful in that I just start over.

In my opinion AI shouldn’t replace coders but it can definitely enhance them if used properly. It’s a tool like everything. I can put a screw in with a hammer but I probably shouldn’t.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Like I said, I do find it useful at times. But not only shouldn't it replace coders, it fundamentally can't. At least, not without a fundamental rearchitecturing of how they work.

The reason it goes down a "really bad path" is that it's basically glorified autocomplete. It doesn't know anything.

On top of that, spoken and written language are very imprecise, and there's no way for an LLM to derive what you really wanted from context clues such as your tone of voice.

Take the phrase "fruit flies like a banana." Am I saying that a piece of fruit might fly in a manner akin to how another piece of fruit, a banana, flies if thrown? Or am I saying that the insect called the fruit fly might like to consume a banana?

It's a humorous line, but my point is serious: We unintentionally speak in ambiguous ways like that all the time. And while we've got brains that can interpret unspoken signals to parse intended meaning from a word or phrase, LLMs don't.

[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 19 points 3 months ago

I have limited AI experience, but so far that's what it means to me as well: helpful in very limited circumstances.

Mostly, I find it useful for "speaking new languages" - if I try to use AI to "help" with the stuff I have been doing daily for the past 20 years? Yeah, it's just slowing me down.

[-] balder1991@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I like the saying that LLMs are “good” at stuff you don’t know. That’s about it.

When you know the subject it stops being much useful because you’ll already know the very obvious stuff that LLM could help you.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

FreedomAdvocate is right, IMO the best use case of ai is things you have an understanding of, but need some assistance. You need to understand enough to catch atleast impactful errors by the llm

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Exactly what you would expect from a junior engineer.

Let them run unsupervised and you have a mess to clean up. Guide them with context and you’ve got a second set of capable hands.

Something something craftsmen don’t blame their tools

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 61 points 3 months ago

AI tools are way less useful than a junior engineer, and they aren't an investment that turns into a senior engineer either.

[-] errer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yeah but a Claude/Cursor/whatever subscription costs $20/month and a junior engineer costs real money. Are the tools 400 times less useful than a junior engineer? I’m not so sure…

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 17 points 3 months ago

The point is that comparing AI tools to junior engineers is ridiculous in the first place. It is simply marketing.

[-] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Even at $100/month you’re comparing to a > $10k/month junior. 1% of the cost for certainly > 1% functionality of a junior.

You can see why companies are tripping over themselves to push this new modality.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 months ago

This line of thought is short sighted. Your senior engineers will eventually retire or leave the company. If everyone replaces junior engineers with ai, then there will be nobody with the experience to fill those empty seats. Then you end up with no junior engineers and no senior engineers, so who is wrangling the ai?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MangoCats@feddit.it 5 points 3 months ago

AI tools are actually improving at a rate faster than most junior engineers I have worked with, and about 30% of junior engineers I have worked with never really "graduated" to a level that I would trust them to do anything independently, even after 5 years in the job. Those engineers "find their niche" doing something other than engineering with their engineering job titles, and that's great, but don't ever trust them to build you a bridge or whatever it is they seem to have been hired to do.

Now, as for AI, it's currently as good or "better" than about 40% of brand-new fresh from the BS program software engineers I have worked with. A year ago that number probably would have been 20%. So far it's improving relatively quickly. The question is: will it plateau, or will it improve exponentially?

Many things in tech seem to have an exponential improvement phase, followed by a plateau. CPU clock speed is a good example of that. Storage density/cost is one that doesn't seem to have hit a plateau yet. Software quality/power is much harder to gauge, but it definitely is still growing more powerful / capable even as it struggles with bloat and vulnerabilities.

The question I have is: will AI continue to write "human compatible" software, or is it going to start writing code that only AI understands, but people rely on anyway? After all, the code that humans write is incomprehensible to 90%+ of the humans that use it.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 10 points 3 months ago

Now, as for AI, it’s currently as good or “better” than about 40% of brand-new fresh from the BS program software engineers I have worked with. A year ago that number probably would have been 20%. So far it’s improving relatively quickly. The question is: will it plateau, or will it improve exponentially?

LOL sure

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Is “way less useful” something you can cite with a source, or is that just feelings?

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 12 points 3 months ago

It is based on my experience, which I trust immeasurably more than rigged "studies" done by the big LLM companies with clear conflict of interest.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 5too@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

The difference being junior engineers eventually grow up into senior engineers.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CabbageRelish@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

On that last note, important thing they left out here being general news reporting tech stuff is that this was specifically bug fixing tasks. It can typically only provide the broadest of advice on that, and it’s largely incapable of tackling problems holistically when you often need to be thinking big picture while tackling a bug.

Interesting that the AI devs thought they were being quicker though.

[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Everyone on Lemmy is a software developer.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ptz@dubvee.org 79 points 3 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] neclimdul@lemmy.world 49 points 3 months ago

Explain this too me AI. Reads back exactly what's on the screen including comments somehow with more words but less information Ok....

Ok, this is tricky. AI, can you do this refactoring so I don't have to keep track of everything. No... Thats all wrong... Yeah I know it's complicated, that's why I wanted it refactored. No you can't do that... fuck now I can either toss all your changes and do it myself or spend the next 3 hours rewriting it.

Yeah I struggle to find how anyone finds this garbage useful.

[-] Damaskox@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

I have asked questions, had conversations for company and generated images for role playing with AI.

I've been happy with it, so far.

[-] neclimdul@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

That's kind of outside the software development discussion but glad you're enjoying it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago

If you give it the right task, it’s super helpful. But you can’t ask it to write anything with any real complexity.

Where it thrives is being given pseudo code for something simple and asking for the specific language code for it. Or translate between two languages.

That’s… about it. And even that it fucks up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sl00k@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

This was the case a year or two ago but now if you have an MCP server for docs and your project and goals outlined properly it's pretty good.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 47 points 3 months ago

Fun how the article concludes that AI tools are still good anyway, actually.

This AI hype is a sickness

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

Writing code is the easiest part of my job. Why are you taking that away?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago

no shit. ai will hallucinate shit I’ll hit tab by accident and spend time undoing that or it’ll hijack tab on new lines inconsistently

[-] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 26 points 3 months ago

I study AI, and have developed plenty of software. LLMs are great for using unfamiliar libraries (with the docs open to validate), getting outlines of projects, and bouncing ideas for strategies. They aren't detail oriented enough to write full applications or complicated scripts. In general, I like to think of an LLM as a junior developer to my senior developer. I will give it small, atomized tasks, and I'll give its output a once over to check it with an eye to the details of implementation. It's nice to get the boilerplate out of the way quickly.

Don't get me wrong, LLMs are a huge advancement and unbelievably awesome for what they are. I think that they are one of the most important AI breakthroughs in the past five to ten years. But the AI hype train is misusing them, not understanding their capabilities and limitations, and casting their own wishes and desires onto a pile of linear algebra. Too often a tool (which is one of many) is being conflated with the one and only solution--a silver bullet--and it's not.

This leads to my biggest fear for the AI field of Computer Science: reality won't live up to the hype. When this inevitably happens, companies, CEOs, and normal people will sour on the entire field (which is already happening to some extent among workers). Even good uses of LLMs and other AI/ML use cases will be stopped and real academic research drying up.

[-] 5too@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

My fear for the software industry is that we'll end up replacing junior devs with AI assistance, and then in a decade or two, we'll see a lack of mid-level and senior devs, because they never had a chance to enter the industry.

[-] squaresinger@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

That's happening right now. I have a few friends who are looking for entry-level jobs and they find none.

It really sucks.

That said, the future lack of developers is a corporate problem, not a problem for developers. For us it just means that we'll earn a lot more in a few years.

[-] 5too@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

You're not wrong, and I feel like it was a developing problem even before AI - everybody wanted someone with experience, even if the technology was brand new.

That said, even if you and I will be fine, it's still bad for the industry. And even if we weren't the ones pulling up the ladder behind us, I'd still like to find a way to start throwing ropes back down for the newbies...

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

They wanted someone with experience, who can hit the ground running, but didn't want to pay for it, either with cash or time.

  • cheap
  • quick
  • experience

You can only pick two.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You're not wrong, and I feel like it was a developing problem even before AI - everybody wanted someone with experience, even if the technology was brand new.

True. It was a long-standing problem that entry-level jobs were mostly found in dodgy startups.

Tbh, I think the biggest issue right now isn't even AI, but the economy. In the 2010s we had pretty much no intrest rate at all while having a pretty decent economy, at least for IT. The 2008 financial crisis hardly mattered for IT, and Covid was a massive boost for IT. There was nothing else to really spend money on.

IT always has more projects than manpower, so with enough money to spend, they just hired everyone.

But the sanctions against Russia in response to their invasion of Ukraine really hit the economy and rising intrest rates to combat inflation meant that suddenly nobody wanted to invest anymore.

With no investments, startups dried up and large corporations also want to downsize. It's no coincidence that return-to-work mandates only started after the invasion and not in the two years prior of that where lockdowns were already revoked. Work from home worked totally fine for two years after covid lockdowns, and companies even praised how well it worked.

Same with AI. While it can improve productivity in some edge cases, I think it's mostly a scapegoat to make mass-fireings sound like a great thing to investors.

That said, even if you and I will be fine, it's still bad for the industry. And even if we weren't the ones pulling up the ladder behind us, I'd still like to find a way to start throwing ropes back down for the newbies...

You are totally right with that, and any chance I get I will continue to push for hiring juniors.

But I am also over corporate tears. For decades they have been crying over a lack of skilled workers in the IT and pushing for more and more people to join IT, so that they can dump wages, and as soon as the economy is bad, they instantly u-turn and dump employees.

If corporations want to be short-sighted and make people suffer for it, they won't get compassion from me when it fails.

Edit: Remember, we are not the ones pulling the ladder up.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bassomitron@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Couldn't have said it better myself. The amount of pure hatred for AI that's already spreading is pretty unnerving when we consider future/continued research. Rather than direct the anger towards the companies misusing and/or irresponsibly hyping the tech, they direct it at the tech itself. And the C Suites will of course never accept the blame for their poor judgment so they, too, will blame the tech.

Ultimately, I think there are still lots of folks with money that understand the reality and hope to continue investing in further research. I just hope that workers across all spectrums use this as a wake up call to advocate for protections. If we have another leap like this in another 10 years, then lots of jobs really will be in trouble without proper social safety nets in place.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 13 points 3 months ago

People specifically hate having tools they find more frustrating than useful shoved down their throat, having the internet filled with generative ai slop, and melting glaciers in the context of climate change.

This is all specifically directed at LLMs in their current state and will have absolutely zero effect on any research funding. Additionally, openAI etc would be losing less money if they weren't selling (at a massive loss) the hot garbage they're selling now and focused on research.

As far as worker protections, what we need actually has nothing to do with AI in the first place and has everything to do with workers/society at large being entitled to the benefits of increased productivity that has been vacuumed up by greedy capitalists for decades.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] xep@fedia.io 22 points 3 months ago

Code reviews take up a lot of time, and if I know a lot of code in a review is AI generated I feel like I'm obliged to go through it with greater rigour, making it take up more time. LLM code is unaware of fundamental things such as quirks due to tech debt and existing conventions. It's not great.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] FancyPantsFIRE@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago

I’ve used cursor quite a bit recently in large part because it’s an organization wide push at my employer, so I’ve taken the opportunity to experiment.

My best analogy is that it’s like micro managing a hyper productive junior developer that somehow already “knows” how to do stuff in most languages and frameworks, but also completely lacks common sense, a concept of good practices, or a big picture view of what’s being accomplished. Which means a ton of course correction. I even had it spit out code attempting to hardcode credentials.

I can accomplish some things “faster” with it, but mostly in comparison to my professional reality: I rarely have the contiguous chunks of time I’d need to dedicate to properly ingest and do something entirely new to me. I save a significant amount of the onboarding, but lose a bunch of time navigating to a reasonable solution. Critically that navigation is more “interrupt” tolerant, and I get a lot of interrupts.

That said, this year’s crop of interns at work seem to be thin wrappers on top of LLMs and I worry about the future of critical thinking for society at large.

[-] Feyd@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That said, this year’s crop of interns at work seem to be thin wrappers on top of LLMs and I worry about the future of critical thinking for society at large.

This is the must frustrating problem I have. With a few exceptions, LLM use seems to be inversely proportional to skill level, and having someone tell me "chatgpt said ___" when asking me for help because clearly chatgpt is not doing it for their problem makes me want to just hang up.

[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

Just the other day I wasted 3 min trying to get AI to sort 8 lines alphabetically.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] worldistracist@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago

Great! Less productivity = more jobs, more work security.

[-] OpenPassageways@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah... It's useful for summarizing searches but I'm tempted to disable it in VSCode because it's been getting in the way more than helping lately.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
406 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76339 readers
1163 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS