submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/programming@programming.dev
 

studies show a clear trend – output is up (more code, more commits, bigger diffs), but outcomes don’t reflect that trend. If anything, the average team is taking longer to ship worse software

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

This doesn't seem to cover there is also no LLM that doesn't plagiarize, or where the training data appears to be compatible with such behavior (e.g. CC0). Now I don't know what that means legally, but morally it seems to be tossing away other project's licensing and I think for FOSS as a whole that's no good.

Also something worth reiterating: https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/illusion-of-thinking LLMs apparently can't do basic logical reasoning. Even a junior coder can do that. I'm always surprised anybody would let LLMs near their code, at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Of course it didnt cover that. This was an article on the efficacy of AI in writing software, not a treatise on ethical or legal concerns. I would completely lose trust in the author if they started piling on every reason why "AI Bad", because it would be clear that they have an agenda

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago

    In my opinion that's not the framing the article uses. It just says "I’m currently pulling together a bunch of sources – that are mostly recent – on the topic of LLMs and their use in software development.".

    Leaving out any ethical concerns for that basic framing seems like a pretty notable choice, so I thought it was worth pointing that out.

  • source
  • parent