[codechicago277]

The fault lies entirely with the human operator for not understanding the risks of tying a model directly to the prod database, there’s no excuse for this, especially without backups.

To immediately turn around and try to bully the LLM the same way you would bully a human shows what kind of character this person has too. Of course the LLM is going to agree with you and accept blame, they’re literally trained to do that.

[croes]

>Replit CEO on AI breakthroughs: ‘We don’t care about professional coders anymore’

https://www.semafor.com/article/01/15/2025/replit-ceo-on-ai-...

You get what you ask for. You can't blame non-professionals to not act like professionals.

[danfunk]

brilliant link. This says everything I had to say with far greater eloquence.

[nominallyfree]

I don't see the appeal of tooling that shields you from learning the admittedly annoying and largely accidental) complexity in developing software.

It can only make accidental complexity grow and people's understanding diminish.

When the inevitable problems become apparent, and you claim people should have understood better. Maybe using the tool that let's you avoid understanding things was a bad idea...

[ben_w]

Sure, but every abstraction does that.

A manager hiring a team of real humans, vs. a manager hiring an AI, either way the manager doesn't know or learn how the system works.

And asking doesn't help, you can ask both humans and AI, and they'll be different in their strengths and weaknesses in those answers, but they'll both have them — the humans' answers come with their own inferential distance and that can be hard to bridge.

[AlphaEsponjosus]

Thats not the same. In this case, a machine made a descision that was against its intructions. If a machine make decisions by itself, no one knows avout the process. A team of humans makimg decisions, benefits from multiple point of views, despite the manager being the one that aproves what is implemented or decides the course ofnthe proyect.

Humans make mistakes, and they are critical too (crowdstrike), but letting machines decide, and build, and everything, just let humans out of the processes, and with the current state of "AI", thats just dumb.

[ben_w]

That's a very different problem than what I was replying to, which was about them being tools that "shields you from learning" and "using the tool that let's you avoid understanding things was a bad idea".

I agree that AI have risks specifically because of memetic monoculture, in that while they can come from many different providers, and each instance even from the same provider can be asked to role-play in many different approaches to combine multiple viewpoints, they're all still pretty similar. But the counter point there is that while multiple different humans working together can sometimes avoid this, we absolutely also get group-think and other political dynamics that make us more alike than we ideally would be.

Also you're comparing a group humans vs. one AI. I meant one human vs one AI.