[latchkey]

The way I look at it, from a quality perspective, this is the worst it will be. I certainly won't ever go back to coding without AI. If you extrapolate from there and the general need for tokens compounding with the demand, it is only upwards, whether you agree with it or not.

We can debate endlessly whether the horse and buggy is better than the car, or the cell phone will replace the film camera. But at the end of the day, history has shown that none of that matters. We're better off just agreeing to it and working to improve it.

[hshdhdhj4444]

We can debate whether conventional weapons are better than nuclear weapons or not. But none of that matters. We’re better off just agreeing to it and working to improve it…

The problem with your analogies are that there is no path where a constant improvement to cars leads to anything but better outcomes for human.

There is no realistic or likely path where improvements to cellphones leads to anything but better outcomes for humans.

However, if AI keeps getting better to the extent we can imagine, ie Super Intelligence, the outcomes are more likely to be extinction level negative than positive.

[latchkey]

I have a much more positive outlook on humanity and I don't share the same doomsday scenario. For me, I made the conscious decision to turn off the news after covid. Something obviously flipped in that period where the negativity just compounded, and it just feeds into itself. I watch my own family sucked into the cycle of "what did trump do now!" kind of stuff and I found it really wasn't healthy for my own mental being. Ignorance is bliss.

[xigoi]

> I certainly won't ever go back to coding without AI.

That’s not up to you to decide. Whatever company’s service you are using can and will eventually pull the rug.

[latchkey]

That’s why open models and distributed inference are so important. Can’t pull kimi25 from me.

[maplethorpe]

> We can debate endlessly whether the horse and buggy is better than the car, or the cell phone will replace the film camera. But at the end of the day, history has shown that none of that matters. We're better off just agreeing to it and working to improve it.

I don't know why people keep pointing to history to argue adoption is inevitable. Isn't history is littered with no-code solutions that no one uses anymore?

[latchkey]

I spent a year in high school with this at the top of the chalk board of my history class: "Those who don't study history are destined to repeat it"

The internet has been entwined in my life since 1991, when I got my first email. Before that it was BBS's. The context and parallels that I'm witnessing now very much align with what I've seen before over the last 35 years. I've bet on some history based predictions in this cycle that few else saw, that absolutely have come true.

This isn't a no-code solution, and not even close to that. It is very much of a more code than ever solution.

[davidw]

Who are the actors working to "improve it" though?

You have big tech oligarchs salivating at the idea of moar profits by firing a bunch of people.

You have elected officials who might mean well but won't be able to react quickly and don't understand the nuance of a lot of tech things.

You have ordinary people trying to figure out how to make use of this stuff without losing their own jobs. But they don't have a ton of influence.

[jopsen]

> You have big tech oligarchs salivating at the idea of moar profits by firing a bunch of people.

For big tech to start relying on vibe coding without code reviews etc is a huge risk.

Big tech has so much red tabe preventing people from getting stuff done. Security reviews needed, etc. This inertia will hold back even a super intelligence from getting stuff done.

Some nerds in a garage trying to apply vibe coding to a problem won't have this red tape.

Red tape is necessary in big orgs because you can't have 100k people running around shipping new half broken, semi supported software with security holes. So you established release processes, approvals, code reviews, etc.

All I'm saying is: big tech is also at risk of being disrupted by AI.

[latchkey]

I do agree with you, there is too much grift, but that's to be expected.

I'm one of the actors and I sided with AMD early on.