this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
-53 points (11.6% liked)

Technology

5078 readers
781 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.

Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.

Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip
-53
Don't fall into the anti-AI hype (antirez.com)
submitted 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) by nil@piefed.ca to c/technology@lemmy.zip
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Whatever you believe about what the Right Thing should be, you can't control it by refusing what is happening right now. Skipping AI is not going to help you or your career. Think about it. Test these new tools, with care, with weeks of work, not in a five minutes test where you can just reinforce your own beliefs. Find a way to multiply yourself, and if it does not work for you, try again every few months.

P.S. I learned that not all of you are developers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

From the article, literally one line above the line you quoted:

In the past week, just prompting, and inspecting the code to provide guidance from time to time, in a few hours I did the following four tasks, in hours instead of weeks:

  1. I modified my linenoise library to support UTF-8, and created a framework for line editing testing that uses an emulated terminal that is able to report what is getting displayed in each character cell. Something that I always wanted to do, but it was hard to justify the work needed just to test a side project of mine. But if you can just describe your idea, and it materializes in the code, things are very different.
  1. I fixed transient failures in the Redis test. This is very annoying work, timing related issues, TCP deadlock conditions, and so forth. Claude Code iterated for all the time needed to reproduce it, inspected the state of the processes to understand what was happening, and fixed the bugs.
  1. Yesterday I wanted a pure C library that would be able to do the inference of BERT like embedding models. Claude Code created it in 5 minutes. Same output and same speed (15% slower) than PyTorch. 700 lines of code. A Python tool to convert the GTE-small model.
  1. In the past weeks I operated changes to Redis Streams internals. I had a design document for the work I did. I tried to give it to Claude Code and it reproduced my work in, like, 20 minutes or less (mostly because I'm slow at checking and authorizing to run the commands needed).
[–] Kirk@startrek.website 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Those paragraphs are what I'm talking about. The author fails to explain what the LLM actually did that was helpful. It's like saying "I used ChatGPT to plan my wedding menu" without any more details. What did it actually do? Why was it helpful? Those are the things I continue to not understand about these tools.

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I'm confused why you are confused.

In the past week, just prompting, and inspecting the code to provide guidance from time to time

I feel like it is pretty clear the author said "hey AI, do this thing." The AI made an attempt, the author clarified a few things and maybe made some edits, and then was satisfied with the result.

Like your example of planning a wedding menu. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is. If someone said "I used chatgpt to plan my wedding menu", I assume they prompted it something like "plan my wedding menu. I want something classy but cheap. No fish." Then chatgpt spat out a few options, they provided feedback - "I dont like broccoli either" - and then they picked an option they like.

[–] Kirk@startrek.website 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

It seems we agree on the facts, but not on what "useful" or "helpful" means. I honestly have never, ever considered deciding on what food to serve guests be "labor", but in the interests of replying in good faith I asked an LLM the exact prompt you gave. It gave a long, detailed reply, but here is the first part labeled "1. Welcome / Cocktail Reception":

Mini prosciutto‑wrapped melon balls • Brie & caramelized onion tartlets (store‑bought puff pastry) • Stuffed mushroom caps (herb cream cheese + breadcrumbs)

I want you to consider that this not actually helpful in the slightest, and is fact creating more work. Consider: is there a vendor nearby that has these items as an an option for event planning? Is this a recipe that even exists? Does this information further my mission of having a wedding in any conceivable way?

[–] Senal@programming.dev 3 points 6 hours ago

Or Perhaps:

  • They have a large corpus of context files to help with all aspects of how the output is generated
  • They're using a model with specialised fine tuning for the task attempted
  • They have a series of MCP servers with access to relevant tooling available
  • They have many many hours of prior experience with the setup and usage of such tools
  • They used multiple tools manually and pulled the bits they needed
  • They just said "Make me a thing" and it just worked like magic

they mention reinforcement learning, pre-training and other general LLM concepts, but none of these are related back to the tasks they are talking about.

The point is, there was no explanation of how any of this was achieved, which can lead to confusion about what was actually achieved.

The LLM wrote some docs vs the LLM rewrote the library from end to end are very different things.

It's very much a "Don't give up on X, look at what can be achieved" but without any actual details on what is required to achieve those results.