[woeirua]

This doesn’t constitute AI psychosis. His argument is that we need to retain understanding of the systems we use, but there’s no compelling argument as to why that is the case. (I get that people are going to be offended by that statement, but agents are already better than the average software engineer. I don’t see why we need to fight this, except for economic insecurity caused by mass layoffs.)

It all just feels like horse drawn carriage operators trying to convince automobile drivers to stop driving.

[9dev]

If you want to draw that line of argument - it's more like horse riders being convinced to give up their horses in favour of trains: You're travelling faster, don't have to navigate yourself, or think about every boulder on the way; but there are destinations you can't go, overcrowded trains slowing down the journey, hefty ticket prices, and instead of enjoying the freedom, you're degraded to a passive passenger.

[hansmayer]

Very funny, this. Did we need forward deployed engineers to convince people that they absolutely need to use the trains in order to "not be left behind"? Or otherwise hype? Or was it sort of obvious and did not need to explained so much - like a bad joke called LLMs ?

[9dev]

Actually- absolutely! Initially, people were really afraid of trains, fearing they wouldn’t be able to breathe at those speeds. It took a lot of convincing to establish trust in the technology.

[uuyy]

Ever heard of subsidising? :’)

[hansmayer]

> Initially, people were really afraid of trains, fearing they wouldn’t be able to breathe at those speeds

That was one doctor raising that as an issue, which was dispelled very quickly. It was not a wide-spread belief at any one point. Let's not bullshit ourselves and insult our own intelligence - the chatbots != intelligence.

[9dev]

That isn't accurate either. The Victorians definitely had a fear of train travel for a few reasons. The point I was making though is that most technologies humans ever introduced triggered both enthusiasm and scepticism, especially if they disrupted established practice or industries.

Looking back and considering a technology or specific decision obvious is pretty dismissive of people at the time, who didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Some things that worked could really have turned out disastrous, and things that didn't were real possibilities with no way to assess the outcome without doing it.

And concerning the introduction of AI happening right now, which absolutely is disruptive, that judgement will be made by future historians. Whether it's actual intelligence or just nice math (or both of our opinions on that question) doesn't really matter if it causes big changes.

[hansmayer]

Could be, would be, should be is not the discourse we should have about this tech.

Not after Dario's and Sam's "authoritative" statements on what is definitely going to happen "in the next 6 months, 12 months" etc. I am just holding these guys to their own words. I don't want to invest time and energy to make their effing "PocketPhds" finally work as advertised. And I don't want to compare it to technologies which just worked as advertised. Whether you had fear of trains or not, they effing worked exactly as advertised. No one disputed that they would get you somewhere faster than the horse. Perhaps there was fear of using them "for a few reasons", as you succinctly and hand-wavingly put, but no one disputed that they were faster than the horses. LLMs on the other hand are worth less than those horses excrement, i.e. horseshit. What the fuck is their value proposition? No one knows.

Also LLMs are not disruptive, they are destructive - not to the technology, but to the people's lives.

[lkjdsklf]

> there’s no compelling argument as to why that is the case.

I'm not sure that's true. We've actually seen several open source projects that were vibe coded literally fold up and disappear because they ran into issues that the AI couldn't solve and no one understood them well enough to solve.

There's a reason openai/anthropic and friends are hiring shitloads of software engineers. You still need people that can understand and fix things when the AI goes off hte rails, which happens way more often than any of those companies would like to admit. Sure, "fixing things" often involves having the AI correct itself, but you still have to understand the system enough to know how/when to do that.

[caconym_]

I am sure you will feel that this is missing the point of your analogy, but we would not have gotten very far with automobiles if we didn't know how they worked.

[throw310822]

You are breaking the analogy because automobiles are machines for transportation, and understanding them is important to make them move. LLMs are machines to understand, and well, if they do the understanding you don't need to.

[caconym_]

The thing we're worried about not understanding here is the software the LLMs write, not the LLMs themselves.

The direct analogy to automobiles would be for each automobile to be a oneoff design filled with bad and bizarre decisions, excessively redundant parts, insane routing of wires, lines, ducts, etc., generally poor serviceability, and so on. IMO the big question going forward is whether the consistent availability of LLMs can render these kinds of post-delivery issues moot (they will reliably [catch and] fix problems in the software they wrote before any real damage is caused), or whether human reliance on LLMs and abdication of understanding will just make software worse because LLMs' ability to fix their own mistakes, and the consequences thereof, generally breaks down in the same contexts/complexities where they made those mistakes in the first place.

My own observations are that moderately complex software written in the mode of "vibe coding" or "agentic engineering" tends to regress to barely-functional dogshit as features are piled on, and that once this state is reached, the teams behind it are unable to, or perhaps simply uninterested in, unfuck[ing] it. I have stopped using software that has gone down this path, not because I have some philosophical objection to it, but because it has become _literally unusable_. But you will certainly not catch me claiming to know what the future holds.

[jgbuddy]

agreed completely