> The shit gets dumped on people who are lonely, have a grudge, feel left out.

Like teenagers.

> The people who are in deep likely need years of deprogramming and therapy to recover which they will never get.

Like a cult. Current social media is like a cult that preys on teenagers. No wonder they want to ban it for young people. American government trying to forcefully spread its cult via the freedom.gov proxy is the vile cherry on top.

This is a quantitative change for Trump. He went from preying on a few kids to preying on all the kids in the world. He must feel ecstatic.

> Do you mean that VPN will blur the nipples when you watch pictures of classical paintings through it?

No, it means they will send a SWAT team to your house if you use it to download a movie.

In the same way they used their soft power to influence them not to block twitter and facebook? Because that power is slowly going from soft to limp...

And that's what they dared to show to the public. I shudder thinking about the state of their code...

You're holding the LLM wrong.

It's about as easy to hold as an old foam mattress

> The AI rip-off was not just ugly. It was careless, blatantly amateuristic, and lacking any ambition, to put it gently. Microsoft unworthy.

LOL, I disagree. It's very on brand for Microslop.

It's like some companies with huge interests are spreading FOMO, isn't it?

What that model is going to do in 2 years is replace tech debt with more complicated tech debt.

One could argue that's a cynically accurate definition of most iterative development anyway.

But I don't know that I accept the core assertion. If the engineer is screening the output and using the LLM to generate tests, chances are pretty good it's not going to be worse than human-generated tech debt. If there's more accumulated, it's because there's more output in general.

Only if you accept the premise that the code generated by LLMs is identical to the developer's output in quality, just higher in volume. In my lived professional experience, that's not the case.

It seems to me that prompting agents and reviewing the output just doesn't.... trigger the same neural pathways for people? I constantly see people submit agent generated code with mistakes they would have never made themselves when "handwriting" code.

Until now, the average PR had one author and a couple reviewers. From now on, most PRs will have no authors and only reviewers. We simply have no data about how this will impact both code quality AND people's cognitive abilities over time. If my intuition is correct, it will affect both negatively over time. It remains to be seen. It's definitely not something that the AI hyperenthusiasts think at all about.

> In my lived professional experience, that's not the case.

In mine it is the case. Anecdata.

But for me, this was over two decades in an underpaid job at an S&P500 writing government software, so maybe you had better peers.

I stated plainly: "we have no data about this". Vibes is all we have.

It's not just me though. Loads of people subjectively perceiving a decrease in quality of engineering when relying on agents. You'll find thousands of examples on this site alone.

I have yet to find an agent that writes as succinctly as I do. That said, I have found agents more than capable of doing something.