To be fair, he didn’t say he was ugly or unkempt, just that he looked like he expected him to. You’re the one who took that to mean ugly.

“AI coding assistants feel productive because they give instant feedback. You type a prompt and code drops in right away. That loop feels like progress, the same reward you get from closing a ticket or fixing a failing test. The problem is that dopamine rewards activity in the editor, not working code in production.”

https://www.cerbos.dev/blog/productivity-paradox-of-ai-coding-assistants

I believe you are mistaken - I’m speaking about LLMs within the context of FOSS and coding as that’s the subject of OP’s post and the article they linked to. You may have thoughts about LLMs in general, but you don’t seem to be addressing their use (and abuse) when it comes to coding or giving them carte blanche when it comes access to FOSS repos. Because if you, as the article suggests, just bend over, you’re giving access to all LLMs, not just some hypothetical specially trained one.

A stark difference is that GUIs are designed with the same feature set as the CLI. Unlike an LLM, the GUI is not going to start suddenly making up data, offering nonexistent features, or straight up lying. The GUI is a more easily accessible interface that more or less behaves like the CLI. It’s like an orbital sander versus manual sanding - generally easier but you can also really fuck shut up if you don’t know what you’re doing.

Furthermore, coding is not merely clicking buttons or typing commands. You need to understand your language, your compiler, the intended runtime environment, etc., as well as best practices and then also have the purely human ability to create a new way of doing something. The LLM simply regurgitates what it’s been trained on without regard to the quality of that data - it can’t make value judgements on best approaches or even syntax, it’s just monkey-see, monkey-do. Hell, it can’t even sometimes differentiate between the correct syntaxes for different languages. In the end it gets you nothing but the illusion of convenience and the very real problem of non-functional, unmaintainable, and/or unoptimized code. It’s a fool’s bargain.

This presupposes that there is some real and tangible benefit to LLMs, but an explanation of that argument is never put forward. Sure, the dream is to have the magic LLM genie write you code that runs perfectly and does what you want, but now you have code you didn’t write and can’t maintain. So you have to rely on the LLM genie for that to, and sooner rather than later - no matter how well you’ve trained it - it’s going to run across something it can’t do. And then what? You have a pile of code you don’t understand and no idea yourself how to fix it yourself because you kept having the genie do it.

What about all of that is worth the theft of the work of others, the resource demands to train and run the LLMs, and the debasement of actual coders?

It’s almost impressive how Sweeney manages to have the most wrong take on every single issue.

Read the article:

“The Indie Game Awards have a hard stance on the use of gen AI throughout the nomination process and during the ceremony itself. When it was submitted for consideration, a representative of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33.”

It is wasn’t about what was released, the rules of the awards had restrictions on using AI in development and the developers lied about not using it when they submitted themselves for the award. Gen AI is bad, but lying about using it is much worse.

They lied on the application and said no AI was used.

They don’t want their own spaces as much as making other people’s spaces are theirs too - aka “This is why we can’t have nice things”

32 years 👴🏻

Have you ever heard the phrase “You can’t reason someone out of an opinion that they didn’t reason themselves into”? If they’re objectively not fat, than what they’re really saying is they feel like they’re fat, not they they think that they’re fat. That can be for a whole host of reasons, but arguing facts with them won’t help. Far better to have discussions with them about why they feel that way and why they’re focused on it. Ultimately it’s an issue they have to resolve themselves and not something you can convince them of.

None of the age verification services respect privacy - that’s baked into the whole push for it. Because it’s not just about “verifying” people’s ages at a specific point in time, especially in the US, it’s about being able to prove you have in case anyone tries to sue you.

Headlines like this really need to put the emphasis on the cause, e.g. “UK Government Forces Bluesky to Roll Out Age Verification”