You're unlikely to spit out code from your corpus verbatim, so the answer to your first question is a resounding no. If you did copy from your previous jobs, you'd be liable.
Code doesn't exist in a pure, abstract vacuum, the environment around it shapes it and makes it useful. Technology all by itself is sterile.
When Torvalds says he doesn't want politics in his projects, he means he doesn't want the politics he doesn't like to come up when discussing Linux. He's made a lot of political statements throughout the years, but it's acceptable for him because it's his.
The planet is burning, and government-sponsored hackers are threatening all users of one of the most widely used kernel, but sure, we need the thirsty CVE-generation machine today because he's had his fun playing with them.
Well, good luck enforcing the GPL with the low-quality generated slop. The lack of foresight from one of the world's top software leaders here is frankly appalling.
Disjkstra wrote a nice paper explaining why natural language is terrible to write code... It's a dream for idiots, actual engineers dread the ambiguity.
It's not weird. The good side of the LLM craze is that its failures are documented at length all over the Internet. It's in every tech blog out there, even in those run by users of agents. There isn't a day without a LLM article on the front page of HN and Lobste.rs.
I don't actually hate the tech itself, and, like most, am pretty impressed at what it can do at the moment - the way I'm impressed by what the useless Boston Dynamics robots can do.
I oppose LLM usage for practical, very rational reasons. The most important aspect is an ethical one: the planet is burning, I don't want to make things worse by using something that barely even works.
There is another, very important aspect: I can't actually run it locally, which means relying on it means depending on external suppliers from an enemy country that may cut the pipes without prior notice, as it tried to do very recently.
Additionally, the costs are very high, increasing and enshittification has barely even started. Once monopolies are established, I don't want to have to pay soaring cartel prices for a shitty service I could have avoided depending upon to begin with.
There's still a broad range of domains that are fundamentally incompatible with usage of LLMs because of reliability and/or confidentiality reasons, and I want to remain employable as a software engineer and stand out from the legion of CRUD developers whose skills will inevitably atrophy as LLM adoption increases.
I do see how I could use them sporadically, but cf. reason #1. Using LLMs is immoral.
And I do know how to do my job. I don't have a velocity issue. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Being a good lead means knowing when someone's not going to cut it, and when to let them go to protect the rest of the team. My boss recently failed to do so, and 3 people got laid off as a result because the money spent on the rotten apple was used compensating for their lackluster output and could not be used to pay the good employees' salaries.
Additionally, it also means seeing through your colleagues' bullshit (blame deflection, deception) and reacting accordingly. And even when you see through the bullshit, you sometimes need to compromise and learn to tolerate it because the tradeoff is worthwile. Sometimes.
Thanks for judging my performance as a lead based on fuck all. Now, moving on the point at hand.
You're spot on when saying that LLMs are not human beings and don't have intentions. The truth is, I don't actually care. The tech is advertized as a replacement for human programmers, and I judge on its actions in that context.
Moving back to your point - you're right that it doesn't lie. It's an analogy. However, it gaslights like a pathological liar and does the things it's been specifically told to not do, and does so repeatedly. If a human acted similarly, it'd be gone without delay, even when omitting the quality issues it has which humans also have.
Hey, DJ!
Followed by the tastefully named Snesticle
Renowned snake oil salesman peddling more snake oil. Pretty on-brand.
You started writing code in the 60s, yet you never quite mastered the craft, and you're proving it yet again. Remarkable.
If you find anything interesting, please let me know, I'm interested!
I am... linking to a relevant article? Are you OK?
Ah, touché. That was a bit... grandiloquent 😄
The original point still stands though, there was nothing actually mystical about what I was saying before, it was fairly simple to understand.
I honestly cannot figure out why it would fly above your head like that.
For anyone interested: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html
It's not because you don't understand them that they're meaningless.
Classic LLM-fueled Dunning-Krueger nutcase.
You're unlikely to spit out code from your corpus verbatim, so the answer to your first question is a resounding no. If you did copy from your previous jobs, you'd be liable.
🤦
I honestly expected better from him...
Code doesn't exist in a pure, abstract vacuum, the environment around it shapes it and makes it useful. Technology all by itself is sterile.
When Torvalds says he doesn't want politics in his projects, he means he doesn't want the politics he doesn't like to come up when discussing Linux. He's made a lot of political statements throughout the years, but it's acceptable for him because it's his.
The planet is burning, and government-sponsored hackers are threatening all users of one of the most widely used kernel, but sure, we need the thirsty CVE-generation machine today because he's had his fun playing with them.
Well, good luck enforcing the GPL with the low-quality generated slop. The lack of foresight from one of the world's top software leaders here is frankly appalling.
Disjkstra wrote a nice paper explaining why natural language is terrible to write code... It's a dream for idiots, actual engineers dread the ambiguity.
Not remotely comparable.
The IDE vs punch cards comparison is ridiculous, there's a provable performance difference when writing code with an editor (not everyone uses IDEs!).
🤢
It's not weird. The good side of the LLM craze is that its failures are documented at length all over the Internet. It's in every tech blog out there, even in those run by users of agents. There isn't a day without a LLM article on the front page of HN and Lobste.rs.
I don't actually hate the tech itself, and, like most, am pretty impressed at what it can do at the moment - the way I'm impressed by what the useless Boston Dynamics robots can do.
I oppose LLM usage for practical, very rational reasons. The most important aspect is an ethical one: the planet is burning, I don't want to make things worse by using something that barely even works.
There is another, very important aspect: I can't actually run it locally, which means relying on it means depending on external suppliers from an enemy country that may cut the pipes without prior notice, as it tried to do very recently.
Additionally, the costs are very high, increasing and enshittification has barely even started. Once monopolies are established, I don't want to have to pay soaring cartel prices for a shitty service I could have avoided depending upon to begin with.
There's still a broad range of domains that are fundamentally incompatible with usage of LLMs because of reliability and/or confidentiality reasons, and I want to remain employable as a software engineer and stand out from the legion of CRUD developers whose skills will inevitably atrophy as LLM adoption increases.
I do see how I could use them sporadically, but cf. reason #1. Using LLMs is immoral.
And I do know how to do my job. I don't have a velocity issue. As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Being a good lead means knowing when someone's not going to cut it, and when to let them go to protect the rest of the team. My boss recently failed to do so, and 3 people got laid off as a result because the money spent on the rotten apple was used compensating for their lackluster output and could not be used to pay the good employees' salaries.
Additionally, it also means seeing through your colleagues' bullshit (blame deflection, deception) and reacting accordingly. And even when you see through the bullshit, you sometimes need to compromise and learn to tolerate it because the tradeoff is worthwile. Sometimes.
Thanks for judging my performance as a lead based on fuck all. Now, moving on the point at hand.
You're spot on when saying that LLMs are not human beings and don't have intentions. The truth is, I don't actually care. The tech is advertized as a replacement for human programmers, and I judge on its actions in that context.
Moving back to your point - you're right that it doesn't lie. It's an analogy. However, it gaslights like a pathological liar and does the things it's been specifically told to not do, and does so repeatedly. If a human acted similarly, it'd be gone without delay, even when omitting the quality issues it has which humans also have.