It's still made by the slop machine, the same one that could only be created by stealing every human made artwork that's ever been published. (And this is not "just one company", every LLM has this issue.)

Not only that, the companies building massive datacenters are taking valuable resources from people just trying to live.

If the developer isn't able to keep up, they should look for (co-)maintainers. Not turn to the greedy megacorps.

It's all about curation and review. If they use AI to make the whole project, it's going to be bloated slop. If they use it to write sections that they then review, edit, and validate; then it's all good.

I'm fairly anti-AI for most current applications, but I'm not against purpose-built tools for improving workflow. I use some of Photoshop's generative tools for editing parts of images I'm using for training material. Sometimes it does fine, sometimes I have to clean it up, and sometimes it's so bad it's not worth it. I'm being very selective, and if the details are wrong it's no good. In the end, it's still a photo I took, and it has some necessary touchups.

• Ethical issue: products of the mind are what makes us humans. If we delegate art, intellectual works, creative labour, what's left of us?
• Socio-economic issue: if we lose labour to AI, surely the value produced automatically will be redistributed to the ones who need it most? (Yeah we know the answer to this one)
• Cultural issue: AIs are appropriating intellectual works and virtually transferring their usufruct to bloody billionaires

If a human is reviewing the code they submit and owning the changes I don’t care if they use an LLM or not. It’s when you just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks that’s the problem.

I’m more concerned with the admitted OpenClaw usage. That’s a hydrogen bomb heading straight for a fireworks factory.

Personally, I have never seen LLM generated code that works without needing to be edited, but I imagine for routine blocks of code and very common things it probably does fine. I dont see why a programmer needs to rewrite the same code blocks over and over again for different projects when an LLM can do that part leaving more time for the programmer to write the more specialized parts. The programmer will still have to edit and verify the generated code, but programming is more mechanical than something like art.

However, for more specialized code, I would be concerned. It would likely not function at all without editing, and if it did function it probably wouldn't be optimized or secure. However, this programmer claims to have 30 years of experience, and if thats the case then he likely knows this and probably edits the LLM output code himself.

As I have said before, Generative AI is a tool, like PhotoShop. I dont see why people should reject a tool if it can make their job easier. It won't be able to completely replace people effectively. Businesses will try, but quality will drop off because its not being used by people that understand what the end result needs to be, and businesses will inevitably lose money.

"If" doing all the lifting here.

If we ignore the mountain of evidence saying the opposite...

I want to one day make a game and there is no way I'm not prototyping it with llm code, though I would want to get things finalized by a real coder if I ever got the game finished but I've never made real progress on learning code even in school

While I know there is more nuance than this, but why should I spend any of my time on something, when you spent no time creating it? I know that applies more to the slop, but that's where I am with most LLM generated stuff.