I think that the problem basically arises due to the fact that the technology is recent and the opinions on it are hard to make and even if we do end up making opinions, then my opinion is of the fact that I am more than happy for AI to suddenly vanish but clearly that can't be the case and there have been some long term discussions that I can point out to.
We can however change our opinions on AI and the culture surrounding it but as witnessed from my comment and other people replying to it, the question is becoming as of if we engineers even have the necessary power capable to bring so the change within how or if we use AI.
That is why, I believe that we might need some nuance rather than a complete acceptation or complete rejection of it.
AI is like a double edged sword, something which is fundamentally both good and bad[0] It is my opinion that currently, the bad outweighs the good and I have been vocal about it, but the control of the matter is strictly beyond one or even one good/bad binary.
The primary issue of the matter is the fact that some people (mainly the C-suite/investor class) believe in so much of the goodness of AI that they are willing to think that anyone pointing out anything bad of AI is the one who hasn't used it and how there are all these anecdotal evidences of people being impressed by model's quality and its evolvement, so surely, if AI must have grown so much and is so good as everyone says online it is (within an internet thought bubble), the fault must be lying on the engineer and he must be one of those luddites who has failed to accept technology and must be replaced.
I suppose some people genuinely believe the above paragraph that I wrote. I have heard some of such sentiments on Hackernews itself...
My point is probably that AI should be treated as a double-edged sword really, that's about it. We can go into the details of it if you so prefer and I think that you are right that its within the nitty gritty details that there is ambiguity and how this discussion leads to that ambiguity, so in that sense I concede but that there should be a better more skeptical discussion regarding the use of AI and it should be up to the organization at first for them to decide how they use AI and be flexible with it but not at the sake of the sanctity of code and coding practices.
I feel like it would be hard to gain a worldwide consensus on the use of AI within software development, we can certainly try but it would be more effective to do so at an organizational level and to slowly level up and I do hope that the world eventually figures out a somewhat consensus of it.
Hope I am able to explain some parts of the severe personality split, this did get long but that's probably because I have just watched some somewhat thought provoking media which used some great vocabulary and I am somewhat copying it as my brain thinks about your comment.
But yea, in all honesty, that's about it. got a bit long so sorry about it but have a nice day and thanks for reading if you did and if not, thats fine as well and I hope you and everyone else including me navigating this somewhat shit hole that has become internet discussion about AI and AI in general, things are getting exhausting and there is some negativity in life at times but I hope that we overcome it and I am optimistic in some sense and I wish nothing but good for all of you within your future as we all navigate the uncertainties of future together :-D
Thanks for the detailed answer, which pretty contrasts with harsh brevity of my comment (sorry if it offended you), I wish you well too of course, me myself being a half-techie/half-artist torn about this double-edgedness of things, I know why there's that split, we all adore the figurative hammer that helps driving nails into walls, but hate it when someone starts using it to drive nails into their or their neighbor’s heads.
But I think everyone, sooner or later, must draw one's personal red line in the way of a hammer that is set to replace humans or turn them into reverse centaurs who forget how to use their own brains - be it by its nature or by the pressure of someone's trillions of dollars.
I, for one, have already drawn one and refused a promotion (which would mean a 2x higher salary) at my work from testing to backend development, because everyone in our development team rushed into using AI agents, which is something I don't want to touch with a 10' pole. That wasn't even the team's decision, it was the company owner's, who decided it's the way of future.
The results were not long in coming, I already hear their complaints about getting lost in the codebase they themselves created, and getting dumber.
> we all adore the figurative hammer that helps driving nails into walls, but hate it when someone starts using it to drive nails into their or their neighbor’s heads. But I think everyone, sooner or later, must draw one's personal red line in the way of a hammer that is set to replace humans or turn them into reverse centaurs who forget how to use their own brains - be it by its nature or by the pressure of someone's trillions of dollars.
This analogy is quite beautiful.
> The results were not long in coming, I already hear their complaints about getting lost in the codebase they themselves created, and getting dumber.
I think that there are some ways that people are trying to create an AI-use policy, here is one that I found on hackernews which I found interesting: https://libls.org/ai-use
Basically, I think that if its a personal thing then sure all bets are off and you can use vibe-coding or whatever on personal projects or prototypes
BUT, you can't really let AI do your job and somehow justify it and its costs (both in terms of tokens and the cost of tearing down the codebase with slop) and there should be a strict code of conduct regarding AI-use.
I feel like we are going to see more attempts at trying to solidify a procedure regarding AI-use and for me, the libls.org/ai-use makes somewhat sense and I'd be curious to think about your opinion.
That being said, it might not still be used within the structures of large companies because of the C-suite/investors issues that I mentioned but I am hopeful that eventually the mania regarding completely unfiltered AI-use slows down.
We can however change our opinions on AI and the culture surrounding it but as witnessed from my comment and other people replying to it, the question is becoming as of if we engineers even have the necessary power capable to bring so the change within how or if we use AI.
That is why, I believe that we might need some nuance rather than a complete acceptation or complete rejection of it.
AI is like a double edged sword, something which is fundamentally both good and bad[0] It is my opinion that currently, the bad outweighs the good and I have been vocal about it, but the control of the matter is strictly beyond one or even one good/bad binary.
The primary issue of the matter is the fact that some people (mainly the C-suite/investor class) believe in so much of the goodness of AI that they are willing to think that anyone pointing out anything bad of AI is the one who hasn't used it and how there are all these anecdotal evidences of people being impressed by model's quality and its evolvement, so surely, if AI must have grown so much and is so good as everyone says online it is (within an internet thought bubble), the fault must be lying on the engineer and he must be one of those luddites who has failed to accept technology and must be replaced.
I suppose some people genuinely believe the above paragraph that I wrote. I have heard some of such sentiments on Hackernews itself...
My point is probably that AI should be treated as a double-edged sword really, that's about it. We can go into the details of it if you so prefer and I think that you are right that its within the nitty gritty details that there is ambiguity and how this discussion leads to that ambiguity, so in that sense I concede but that there should be a better more skeptical discussion regarding the use of AI and it should be up to the organization at first for them to decide how they use AI and be flexible with it but not at the sake of the sanctity of code and coding practices.
I feel like it would be hard to gain a worldwide consensus on the use of AI within software development, we can certainly try but it would be more effective to do so at an organizational level and to slowly level up and I do hope that the world eventually figures out a somewhat consensus of it.
Hope I am able to explain some parts of the severe personality split, this did get long but that's probably because I have just watched some somewhat thought provoking media which used some great vocabulary and I am somewhat copying it as my brain thinks about your comment.
But yea, in all honesty, that's about it. got a bit long so sorry about it but have a nice day and thanks for reading if you did and if not, thats fine as well and I hope you and everyone else including me navigating this somewhat shit hole that has become internet discussion about AI and AI in general, things are getting exhausting and there is some negativity in life at times but I hope that we overcome it and I am optimistic in some sense and I wish nothing but good for all of you within your future as we all navigate the uncertainties of future together :-D
[0]: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/263521/word-phra...