posted in Technology

Cory Doctorow: The people who tell you ‘AI is changing everything’ are lying

www.thenerve.news/p/cory-doctorow-ai-business-incentive-to-lie-useless-chatbots-report-nikhil-suresh
Cory Doctorow: The people who tell you ‘AI is changing everything’ are lyingThe NerveCory Doctorow: The people who tell you ‘AI is changing everything’ are lyingIt has become impossible to tell managers mesmerised by artificial intelligence that the tools are not, in fact, helpful. So employees just play along with the fiction to keep their jobs, writes our tech columnist

Replying to @⁨GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world⁩

I’m a software developer since the 90s, basically before the internet, we had some C books for reference and that’s it. I can tell you that I started last year to use copilot in vscode and some chatgpt on a web page, and it basically changed my world, and all my 50+ years old coworkers are amazed by what it can do really.

You are right it will not fade at all in software development.

Replying to @⁨Magister@lemmy.world⁩

Completely disagree. The difficult part of software development was never writing code OR speed of delivery. It was understanding requirements and problem solving. LLMs still can not do either of those things and there is no evidence they ever will be able to.

An example of how harmful LLMs actually are to development can succinctly be described with an issue I had a few weeks ago. I found an issue in an open source project, code was fine if a bit hard to understand. I came up with a PR to fix the problem.

In the time from me checking out the code to submitting the PR, a little less than 24 hours, the maintainer had completely rewritten the entire project with Claude. It was complete nonsense. Incredibly difficult to understand. Abstracting things that didn’t need abstracting. My PR was useless, because the entire project was new. The maintainer definitely didn’t understand the changes either. If a bug came up there’s no way AI would be able to solve it (the bug was still there even though the code was entirely new).

LLMs don’t understand the code. They just make things that look like they will work. And then a human has to maintain it (or keep paying billions of dollars for Claude to try to fix it).

Replying to @⁨tyler@programming.dev⁩

In other words, you’re arguing that their usage without discernment is detrimental.

Cory agrees on this very same article, and it also includes the same nuance this chain is trying to give voice to:

The other question Suresh implicitly raises is: “How can you reconcile the failure of AI in the enterprise with the individual claims of skilled technologists who insist that AI is helping them do great work?” The answer is that these AI users are “centaurs” – experienced workers who are assisted by automation on terms that they set for themselves.

Thanks to their skill and experience, these workers possess discernment, the ability to tell good code from bad, and (more importantly) good uses of code-generation tools from bad. They demonstrate the adage that worker-driven automation improves quality, while capital-driven automation improves throughput.

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if LLMs had been given the chance to grow into being the same way the web did. Whereas we would be having this same conversation with the letters swapped if corporations were the ones to spawn the WWW instead of the way it came about.

The reason is the same. There is only one war.

Replying to @⁨Promethiel@lemmy.world⁩

It’s not just “usage without discernment”, it’s that AI flattens some costs which are very obvious and very measurable (coding) in such a way that it introduces or amplifies other costs which are much more diffused and hard to measure (code and design reviewing, bug fixing, maintenance, adding new requirements), plus AI is totally incapable of doing the higher level tasks that shape what code needs to be done (technical analysis, requirements analysis and in bigger companies technical architecture).

People who are non-experts, aren’t really senior domain experts or have some kinds of unbalanced expertise (they’ve never really progressed beyond being a coder, or they don’t have full life-cycle experience with big projects or they’re in an industry or position where they just make the code, shove it out the door and it’s not their problem anymore) just look at the one thing they in their ignorance think is THE cost in programming - coding - and go “hey, this AI thing is amazing” even while AI is creating all sorts of much more time consuming problems which they don’t really understand formally (they think those things are just “bad luck”, “there’s nothing we can do about avoiding this” and “it’s just the way things are in programming”) that require the time of people with higher expertise levels (i.e. who are more costly) to solve and AI doesn’t even help with the kind of stuff which if done wrongly or not at all can condemn a software project to fail before it even starts like just half-way decent Technical and Requirements Analysis.

That’s why you get some programmers going “this AI shit is amazing” whilst the really senior software development types are just nodding their heads and thinking “these people are ignorant as fuck juniors”.

Edited ⁨⁨Aug⁩ ⁨5⁩, ⁨2026⁩, ⁨22:36⁩⁩en