I have 3 questions, and I'm coming from a heavily AI-skeptic position, but am open:

1. Do you believe that providing all that context, describing the existing patterns, creating an implementation plan, etc, allows the AI to both write better code and faster than if you just did it yourself? To me, this just seems like you have to re-write your technical documentation in prose each time you want to do something. You are saying this is better than 'Do XYZ', but how much twiddling of your existing codebase do you need to do before an AI can understand the business context of it? I don't currently do development on an existing codebase, but every time I try to get these tools to do something fairly simple from scratch, they just flail. Maybe I'm just not spending the hours to build my AI-parsable functional spec. Every time I've tried this, asking something as simple as (and paraphrased for brevity) "write an Asteroids clone using JavaScript and HTML 5 Canvas" results in a full failure, even with multiple retries chasing errors. I wrote something like that a few years ago to learn Javascript and it took me a day-ish to get something that mostly worked.

2. Speaking of that context. Are you running your models locally, or do you have some cloud service? If you give your entire codebase to a 3rd party as context, how much of your company's secret sauce have you disclosed? I'd imagine most sane companies are doing something to make their models local, but we see regular news articles about how ChatGPT is training on user input and leaking sensitive data if you ask it nicely and I can't imagine all the pro-AI CEOs are aware of the risks here.

3. How much pen-testing time are you spending on this code, error handling, edge cases, race conditions, data sanitation? An experienced dev understands these things innately, having fixed these kinds of issues in the past and knows the anti-patterns and how to avoid them. In all seriousness, I think this is going to be the thing that actually kills AI vibe coding, but it won't be fast enough. There will be tons of new exploits in what used to be solidly safe places. Your new web front-end? It has a really simple SQL injection attack. Your phone app? You can tell it your username is admin'joe@google.com and it'll let you order stuff for free since you're an admin.

I see a place for AI-generated code, for instant functions that do something blending simple and complex. "Hey claude, write a function to take a string and split it at the end of every sentence containing an uppercase A". I had to write weird functions like that constantly as a sysadmin, and transforming data seems like a thing an AI could help me accelerate. I just don't see that working on a larger scale, though, or trusting an AI enough to allow it to integrate a new function like that into an existing codebase.

I mean, originally they thought they had come upon a magic bullet. Turns out it wasn't the case, and now they're going to suffer for it.

From my experience, AI just seems to be a lesson in overfitment. You can't use it to do things nobody has done before. Furthermore, you only really get good responses from prompts related to Javascript

I think right now companies are competing until they're only 1 or 2 that clearly own the majority of the market.

Afterwards they will devolve back into the same thing search engines are now. A cesspool of sponsored ads and links to useless SEO blogs.

They'll just become gate keepers of information again and the only ones that will be heard are the ones who pay a fee or game the system.

Maybe not though, I'm usually pretty cynical when it comes to what the incentives of businesses are.

This struck upon one of the greatest wishes of all corporations. A way to get work without having to pay people for it.

From what I've seen and heard, there are a few factors to this.

One is that the tech industry right now is built on venture capital. In order to survive, they need to act like they're at the forefront of the Next Big Thing in order to keep bringing investment money in.

Another is that LLMs are uniquely suited to extending the honeymoon period.

The initial impression you get from an LLM chatbot is significant. This is a chatbot that actually talks like a person. A VC mogul sitting down to have a conversation with ChatGPT, when it was new, was a mind-blowing experience. This is a computer program that, at first blush, appears to be able to do most things humans can do, as long as those things primarily consist of reading things and typing things out - which a VC, and mid/upper management, does a lot of. This gives the impression that AI is capable of automating a lot of things that previously needed a live, thinking person - which means a lot of savings for companies who can shed expensive knowledge workers.

The problem is that the limits of LLMs are STILL poorly understood by most people. Despite constructing huge data centers and gobbling up vast amounts of electricity, LLMs still are bad at actually being reliable. This makes LLMs worse at practically any knowledge work than the lowest, greenest intern - because at least the intern can be taught to say they don't know something instead of feeding you BS.

It was also assumed that bigger, hungrier LLMs would provide better results. Although they do, the gains are getting harder and harder to reach. There needs to be an efficiency breakthrough (and a training breakthrough) before the wonderful world of AI can actually come to pass because as it stands, prompts are still getting more expensive to run for higher-quality results. It took a while to make that discovery, so the hype train was able to continue to build steam for the last couple years.

Now, tech companies are doing their level best to hide these shortcomings from their customers (and possibly even themselves). The longer they keep the wool over everyone's eyes, the more money continues to roll in. So, the bubble keeps building.

AI is a financial scam. Basically companies that are already mature promise great future profits thanks to this new technological miracle, which makes their stock more valuable than it otherwise would be. Cory Doctorow has written eloquently about this.

When the AI bubble bursts, even janitors and nurses will lose their jobs. Financial institutions will go bust.

for me it typically don't cause syntax errors, but the main thing it fucks up is what you specifically told them to do, where the output straight up does not perform the way your specification requires. If it's just some syntax errors at least the compiler can catch them, this you won't even know if you don't bother testing the output.

I've used Claude code to fix some bugs and add some new features to some of my old, small programs and websites. Not things I can't do myself, but things I can't be arsed to sit down and actually do.

It's actually gone really well, with clean and solid code. easily readable, correct, with error handling and even comments explaining things. It even took a gui stream processing program I had and wrote a server / webapp with the same functionality, and was able to extend it with a few new features I've been thinking to add.

These are not complex things, but a few of them were 20+ files big, and it manage to not only navigate the code, but understand it well enough to add features with the changes touching multiple files (model, logic, view layer for example, or refactor a too big class and update all references to use the new classes).

So it's absolutely useful and capable of writing good code.

I've seen and used AI for snippets of code and it's pretty decent at that.

With my colleagues I always compare it to a battery powered drill. It's very powerful and can make shit a lot easier. But you'd not try to build furniture from scratch with only a battery powered drill.

You need the knowledge to use it - and also saws, screws, the proper bits for those screws and so on and so forth.

There already are. People all over LinkedIn are changing their titles to "AI Code Cleanup Specialist".

Only for taxpayers ☝️