This isn't just another translation layer, though. It's squishy and stochastic. It's more like saying "managers think at a higher level of abstraction". Which is true, but it's not the same as compiled code.
GenAI is like a non-deterministic compiler. Just like your manager's reports except with less logical thinking skill. I'd argue this is still problematic.
But we have to judge how much value that particular thinking has.
As an instructor, I've implemented linked list functionality a zillion times. I'm on the long tail of skills-gain from each reimplementation. But every time I implement it, I'm gaining a little more.
Now, is it worth it? Probably not. The time spent on that marginal gain would be better spent implementing something more novel by hand. So punting to an LLM, while it costs me, might be a net gain in that case. But implementing another compiler? Hell yeah, that would be replacing my thinking. I've only ever made one PL/0 compiler plus that one yacc thing in compiler theory class, and those were a long time ago.
We should quantify the loss of thinking when we decide how much to punt the code creation to someone or something else.
I'm putting together exercises for a C/Systems programming class I'm teaching in the fall.
Partway through this, for some reason [cough procrastination cough], I thought it would be fun to implement them in Scheme. My Scheme was already poor, and what meager skills I had are completely rusty. I used Claude to great effect as a tutor for that, but didn't have it code any of the solutions at all, of course. I could tell I was leveling up fast as I coded the things up.
Gotta use it in the right way if one wants to sharpen ones skills.
It should definitely be concerning to the makers of genAI!
Like I was telling someone else, what we've made here is the ultimate double-edged sword. Use it right and there's great glory. Use it wrong and you're a lifeless, empty husk. In this case, though, people get the far greater dopamine hit from using it wrong.
Algorithmic social media is like this and we already see people rotting out on the infinite scroll. And genAI makes social media look like 70s weed. The question is: on the whole, which side of that double-edged blade is going to be doing the slicing?
Maybe you should consider that they have good reasons to feel that way? That the "broad public" isn't necessarily wrong, stupid, and ignorant on every single topic?
> Compulsory education actually reduced US literacy levels after it was introduced
I can't find any data that supports this causal assertion, and I can find plenty that contradicts the premise that US literacy rates have reduced since compulsory education began.
Before LLMs, a friend of mine lamented that all the juniors at his gig were really fast at producing buggy code. The greater lament was that his bosses loved it. And as a dev, you're getting paid to do what your bosses want.
LLMs can really help you get what your bosses want a lot faster.
As an older dev, myself, I'd already been bitching about the state of software quality before all of this. Companies just didn't give a shit. Sure, people within them did, but as a whole companies will do the bare minimum to not lose your business (because that's what's best for the bottom line). Can't really fault them for their nature.[1]
And then I step back and look at something like Linux or GNU. Perfect and bug-free? Certainly not. But they're damn fine pieces of software. Many open-source projects have historically been damn fine pieces of software. Because they don't care if they lose your "business". They just want to build something cool that they can be proud of.[2]
It's why so many of us agonize over the details of the things we produce and give away for free. It might not even net us another user, but we have pride in our craft and want to do the best we possibly can.
But that way of thinking is a money loser, at least in the short-term. And companies live in the short-term.
So what's going to stop software from just collapsing into a massive pile of crap?
I don't know. Maybe it just has to get so bad that people start going to the marginally-better competition. Isn't exactly a great consolation to me, that.
[1] Small companies are often idealistic and try to do the Right Thing, admittedly. But big ones who tend to be market leaders tend to not.
[2] Insert the entire GNU philosophy here because I just glossed over it completely and I don't want to get called out on it. :)
Maybe this is obvious, but if my name were attached to well-known public OSS code, I'd definitely put forward more effort to ensure it's of as high quality as possible. Within a company you can write somewhat crappy code and have your close team members review it, and honestly there isn't much at stake as long as it works and you haven't done anything egregious. But yeah, you don't get promoted for following the style guide.
I drank a lot of coffee until I forgot to pack instant on a 3 day backpacking trip. Headache the whole time that I cured in 5 minutes by drinking a mt dew the minute we got back to civilization. Figured it wasn't worth it and weaned off.
Then it turned out my rate of getting migraines dropped off considerably. But I love coffee, so I tried decaf. Migraines returned to being more frequent. So that was that.
If I could get it without the side effects, I surely would. Right now I'm drinking a hot cup of delicious roasted barley tea. But it's not the same.
GenAI is like a non-deterministic compiler. Just like your manager's reports except with less logical thinking skill. I'd argue this is still problematic.
reply