Yeah I have to admit I don’t have the energy to gaze into that particular idiotic abyss. How do they even write that kind of fiction, in a world where AI companies routinely use critihype to obtain more investments? The least unhinged CEO: “we caught our AI trying to start a nuclear war, it’s almost skynet, please give us another trillion dollars”, the least unhinged investors: “shut up and take our money”.

I thought it was 2027. What, the timelines slip or something?

Yeah… I think the core point is, LLM’s shit is generated artifacts, which need to be kept separate from sources. That you can’t actually re-generate the same artifacts, is just a dingleberry on top of the shit pile.

Perfect for when your workplace will fire you if you dont use enough tokens, I’m sure.

I think there’s something to the compilers analogy, in the sense that if you used a C compiler through a chat interface with one liners to insert snippets into assembly without keeping the source code in source files as such, it would probably be slower than just writing in assembly yourself.

That LLMs have a number of extremely undesirable properties as “compilers” (from nondeterminism to plagiarism) does not make the dumb ass chat interface any less fundamentally shit. It just makes them shit in other ways too.

I just love how they are adding the absolutely fucking most stupid exploits ever to everything, and then trying to whitewash it with all that bs about Fable or whatever the fuck.

There could be but it would be difficult to implement - something a bit like putting together a shredded paper, heh.

It’s a perfect example of how “using LLMs for test coverage” can also be harmful. He expected the tests to to prevent introduction of said regressions, probably based on a combination of the quantity of tests and their style (they look like what decent human written tests look like). But the tests are AI slop, and so they give a lot less value per line of code than he expects, hence a significant regression.

It is literally useful to call these tests AI slop, and the problem is in part caused by not calling them AI slop, and having consequent inflated expectations. LLMs are not any better at writing tests than at writing other code! It is merely that the bar for tests can, legitimately, be a lot lower (in projects where there would otherwise be no tests at all). Making an exception to calling AI generated tests “slop” is thus counter productive, because it leads people to act as if LLMs are actually better at writing tests than at writing other code, and not just because the bar for tests is frequently very low.

edit: actually scratch that I looked at the PR and those tests even look like dogshit and worse than the tests I seen claude write at a workplace that was into vibecoding (which i since quit).

Oh, by far. There’s only 80 decimal places in that at most.

It got to be a quantum sweatshop: a quantum computer for AGI (a guy instead)

How much does he think an engineer spends on CAD tools, anyway? Altium is like, what, $2500 / year? Very “how much can a banana cost”.

It’s all capital costs for tools, pretty much, anyway, maybe CAD should start charging per net lmao.

Oh they are going to charge per token for github copilot? That thing is a money waste for everyone, I’m pretty sure. I get a mix of inane mildly good suggestions, irrelevant stuff, and an occasional suggestion of super evil sabotage. Due to mild OCD about issues, I tend to have to fix said mildly good suggestions, but from the objective perspective that nitpickery is not worth it, everything was fine without, we had compiler warnings, coverity, etc.

edit: the difference being that the old stuff was deterministic and you just ran it on the whole codebase and had it pass. Unlike gh copilot that’ll just make up new shit. And as for the times it caught some bad bug that you made… add more tests instead.

I think if people are citing in another 3 months time, they’ll be making a mistake

In 3 months they’ll think they’re 40% faster while being 38% slower. And sometime in 2026 they will be exactly 100% slower - the moment referred to as “technological singularity”.