[john_strinlai]

>Who really cares, though?

some people certainly do, to the extent of not caring at all about the outcome, only being concerned with the fact that the process was 'tainted' by ai.

the fervor for/against ai can approach the level of religion for some people.

[mschuster91]

> some people certainly do, to the extent of not caring at all about the outcome, only being concerned with the fact that the process was 'tainted' by ai.

It's one thing if you're using AI to create code in a corporate context. Not my issue when some GPL code gets AI-laundered into production code and it eventually crops up. That's for legal, the C level and whatever AI provider's indemnification to sort out. Not my circus, not my monkeys.

But for personal projects? Ain't no way AI touches that stuff, ever. I simply don't want to deal with even the potential risk of getting expensive nastygrams from lawyers.

[vovavili]

Ideologues always get outcompeted by people with a pragmatic outlook.

[sdevonoes]

Software is probably the worst landscape.

Tabs vs spaces Vim vs emacs Dozens of programming languages that do the same

[sebastiennight]

... on a long enough timescale that has, historically, varied from decades to a couple of millenia, give or take.

[vovavili]

I am talking about software specifically.

[jadar]

it is a religion for some people. idolatry is idolatry.

[StableAlkyne]

I can at least see where those people are coming from

AI can be a phenomenal tool for development when used correctly...

... But there is also now a trend on GitHub of low to no-skill individuals going around spamming garbage work in order to play the numbers game for their resume. When asked why they did something or to change it, they just act as a middleman for the robot and show no understanding or initiative.

So I can understand how it's become a turnoff for some people. I used to think it was a dumb rule until a project I work on started being spammed with said junk PRs

[jonnyasmar]

Oh, I know -- people need to get over it, IMO. Judge the outcome, not the process.

[elpocko]

Imagine using software tools on a computer to make a computer do work without telling anybody that you used software tools on a computer to make the computer do the work. That's just disgusting. Matrix multiplication was invented by the devil.

[gblargg]

You're missing the lack of verification. Normal computer tools can be verified to work reliably. Cat can be tested to copy data. Sort can be confirmed to sort properly. You can't verify that a coding agent can reliably produce code. It's not even easy to check over since the errors aren't something you can systematically find.

[elpocko]

>Normal computer tools can be verified to work reliably. Cat can be tested to copy data. Sort can be confirmed to sort properly.

Right. You can indeed verify that a given computer program can reliably copy or sort data.

>You can't verify that a coding agent can reliably produce code

That's not the goal. You don't need to verify that a coding agent can reliably produce "code". You only need to verify that the solution produced by the agent solves a given problem. And that's already been done and verified many, many times. I hear most code is written by LLMs nowadays, and not all of their users are idiots.