LLM’s can save tremendous time now. You see projects like C&C Generals running on a tablet, or Lego Racers on web which would require tonnes of manual labour and now they’re just a few LLM prompts. It’s gotten to the point these kind of projects which would have been multi-year undertakings in the past have become “unimpressive”
Yes they’re not perfect and they do make mistakes. That’s why understanding architecture is more important than ever. But manual coding is really becoming a thing of the past. Agentic coding progress over the last year has pretty much solidified that. It’s still not perfect but it’s really good now.
Any industry that throws billions of dollars into something will make progress and now that progress has been made there’s not much of a point in just resisting the tech itself. Therefore instead of pleading against all AI I believe it’s much better to plead for open weight or open source and efficient AI.
The problem is like with the Luddites that you don’t own the machine (AI) and the largest companies want to keep full control over them. It’s a problem with the system ruling you not with the technology itself.
The technology is undoubtedly good. All technologies are, if you ask me. The problem is about externalities, but they do matter and cannot be viewed separately.
Currently, as things stand, the development and, notably, use of the technology comes with a massive threat to several important areas. This is why many pieces of software that ban LLM contributions make a for now caveat.
Relying on it now, under current circumstances, is dangerous and damaging, even if sometimes it is a tremendous help. It may get better once we have truly efficient models and training, do not reinvent the wheel from scratch 20 times over, do not screw entire economy over it, put guardrails on the use of technology against people, and have a cheap, resource-efficient, and long-relevant hardware to run it. But we’re not there yet. We’re going to space with a gunpowder barrel here. Workable? I guess. Reasonable? No.
If the goal isn’t to oppose the technology but instead steer towards better use of the technology then that should be promoted. This blanket opposition means that we get fascists like DHH being the only ones to adopt LLM’s because for some reason the left has a hate boner for it.
LLM’s can save tremendous time now. You see projects like C&C Generals running on a tablet, or Lego Racers on web which would require tonnes of manual labour and now they’re just a few LLM prompts. It’s gotten to the point these kind of projects which would have been multi-year undertakings in the past have become “unimpressive”
Yes they’re not perfect and they do make mistakes. That’s why understanding architecture is more important than ever. But manual coding is really becoming a thing of the past. Agentic coding progress over the last year has pretty much solidified that. It’s still not perfect but it’s really good now.
Any industry that throws billions of dollars into something will make progress and now that progress has been made there’s not much of a point in just resisting the tech itself. Therefore instead of pleading against all AI I believe it’s much better to plead for open weight or open source and efficient AI.
The problem is like with the Luddites that you don’t own the machine (AI) and the largest companies want to keep full control over them. It’s a problem with the system ruling you not with the technology itself.
The technology is undoubtedly good. All technologies are, if you ask me. The problem is about externalities, but they do matter and cannot be viewed separately.
Currently, as things stand, the development and, notably, use of the technology comes with a massive threat to several important areas. This is why many pieces of software that ban LLM contributions make a for now caveat.
Relying on it now, under current circumstances, is dangerous and damaging, even if sometimes it is a tremendous help. It may get better once we have truly efficient models and training, do not reinvent the wheel from scratch 20 times over, do not screw entire economy over it, put guardrails on the use of technology against people, and have a cheap, resource-efficient, and long-relevant hardware to run it. But we’re not there yet. We’re going to space with a gunpowder barrel here. Workable? I guess. Reasonable? No.
If the goal isn’t to oppose the technology but instead steer towards better use of the technology then that should be promoted. This blanket opposition means that we get fascists like DHH being the only ones to adopt LLM’s because for some reason the left has a hate boner for it.