110
GrapheneOS defends use of AI for coding (grapheneos.social)
submitted 13 hours ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.

We do not understand where you're coming from or why you're so incredibly angry with us. It's not justified and does not make sense.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 63 points 8 hours ago (14 children)

I haven't dug into the code, but blanket hate for AI in code is extremely frustrating. There's a difference between vibe coding and the hundred other ways to "use AI" on a project.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 7 hours ago (8 children)

    It's funny because anyone seeing this as black and white clearly hasn't ever opened an IDE.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (7 children)

    I've been a programmer for two thirds of my life up to this point. I don't see how the machine that generates code that must be assumed to be broken, and statements about said code that must be assumed to be wrong, until both have been manually verified, because the "hallucination" issue is inherent to the design of LLMs and cannot be solved, is supposed to make my life easier. Especially since a well known problem in computer science is that writing code is more fun than reading it.

    If you're using AI for code generation, I hope you like reading code.

    If you're using AI to learn a repo, I hope you're prepared to fact check everything it tells you.

    If you're using AI for code review before merging a PR, fucking yikes. What made you think the sycophant machine that once told users a soggy cereal bar was a great business opportunity and cannot even transcribe McDonald's orders correctly was suitable for that purpose?

    If you're telling yourself it's okay because there's a human in the loop, please read some studies about decision fatigue and consider that increasing the number of critical decisions a person must make per day, while giving them a suggested answer that's right 90% of the time and catastrophically wrong the remaining 10%, and the only way to tell the difference is to read in depth, might not have the desired effect. Especially if the human in question is then put under time pressure.

    And all that is before I go on a five paragraph rant about the ethical transgressions of every major AI company.

    It's pretty black and white for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (4 children)

    The fact that it isn't perfect is the grey. And sure, it has a lot of problems but not only is it still useful anyways, but those problems are being ironed out. They probably won't disappear completely but the tech is already miles further than what we had 2 years ago.

    To make you understand what I mean by black and white, you have a user that put "AI is evil" in big bold letters in the comments. The hate is almost cult like for part of the population, and imo, it's mostly because the media tells them to be mad.

    Most of it depends on the task in any case. I don't work with massive code bases and it doesn't take long reading through a few scripts, running it and checking the output. The people I know that do work with huge code bases are using it as well, but I can't really talk for them either. They don't hate it tho.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (3 children)

    I agree, it's just not reasonable to assert that a technology powered entirely by IP theft and climate change acceleration must be inherently evil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

    Sorry, I don't bootlick the copyright machine. Anyone with half a brain can see it's transformative. I don't get why collage is fine but AI isn't, it's just copyright mega corps and data brokers that smell blood in the water. All the data isn't even owned by the artist, you are fighting for universal records, not your local guitarist.

    For the climate aspect, it's mostly grid issues and corruption. It's laughable to blame AI when we have president pedo prostrating himself in front of oil companies and destroying renewable projects. We need regulations and all that on where they can be placed and how they get powered, but in the end, it's just software. I could use AI 8 hours a day for my whole life and I still wouldn't be close to the damage one ticket to Europe does. It's a scape goat being served by a corrupt pro oil lobby.

    Don't get me wrong, I know what datacenters entail with the amount of people they serve, but if you look at it at an individual level, it's a drop in the bucket, or it would be if they weren't using plane turbines. We need regulations to curb the stupidity, but it's doesn't make it all inherently bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Lol, "I know this is a legitimate issue, but if I creatively reframe it enough I can pretend it's not".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 hour ago

    I don't think the copyright thing is an issue.

    Climate wise, it's only an issue because of a corrupt administration, it's not a death blow to it. It's at the heart of it overblown by a reasonable measure imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Usually, if it's noticeable that AI was used on code, the code is flawed or, at least, has copyright concerns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago

    Agreed.

    I strongly remember a CompSci professor ~2005 being disgusted with auto-generated Java GUI. And yes it was clunky and more memory intensive than it could have been, but also, I really don't care about how GridView is defined most of the time.

    Bad code is bad code, touched by AI or not. For working code, a volunteer group spending resources to determine if it might have been touched by AI is at the very least an incredibly frustrating standard to try to meet. And very likely impossible to verify in any meaningful way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent