Alternatively, many of these exploits are dependent on extremely niche situations that are mostly handled by existing safeguards.
I’d be interested to see the actual real world severity of these - are they actually things that could be used in an exploit in any meaningful way?
RCE is substantially more severe, it’s possible there just aren’t as many, as they aren’t as applicable to highly contrived scenarios
What if we just learned to code and wrote if ourselves and took some personal interest in the lines we produce?
Almost by definition, maintainability doesn’t refer to a “specific part”
https://www.softwareimprovementgroup.com/blog/artcraft-adobe-clone-ai-code-quality/
I’m not interested in getting into an argument about this any further, look through their github issues, there’s plenty to learn.
As a note, if you think they’re genuinely reviewing this much code at this speed, I think you need to consider the logistics of that.
Also unsustainable: the code they generate.
It’s huge, sprawling and messy.
https://github.com/storytold/photocraft/issues/6903
https://github.com/storytold/artcraft/issues/2273
https://www.softwareimprovementgroup.com/blog/artcraft-adobe-clone-ai-code-quality/
Exactly. Lots of good stuff written in Rust!
Scroll the comments, we’ve had this exact argument.
People literally do struggle with basic maths also
Why would you take that argument and apply it elsewhere? Not every argument applies to every single thing.
Again, rather than just “maybe we should hold onto the skills we have”, the AI brain solution is “let’s just build our own infrastructure for doing the thinking for us”.
There’s a fairly hard limit in the kind of paywall that can be put in front of lighters, axes and pencils.
Not all technology is bad, not all exchanges are detrimental.
People keep doing this - arguing that if you’re against AI you must not want to use any technology.
This seems like a particularly expensive and resource hungry solution when we could just train more teachers and tutors.
Sure you do. We don’t have to have every permutation of every technology.
I think there’s an issue with lumping them all together here. There is a functional difference between a machine that does your homework and is designed to endlessly praise you, and a model specifically designed to identify viruses or medications.
While anecdotes are iffy sometimes, I think they’re alright in this context.
If people feel the need to reach for calculators rather than doing simple maths in their heads, that at least nods in the direction that the technology has impacted our skill development, or at the very least, made us inclined to use the tool over our own facilities.
But also, there’s emerging evidence of the issues with frequent AI use, so it seems pointless to split hairs.
Edit: just to clarify, I was agreeing with you in my first comment
I was saying the person you responded to was essentially saying “nuh uh!”
It has potential, though I wonder if that’s genuinely better than studying the old fashioned way.
It can definitely feel more dynamic, I’m not convinced the outcomes are provably better.
Absolutely, I’m not necessarily making the argument that calculators are bad, just the point that technology can help us, and also create dependency, or at least a kind of laziness.
He’s not really citing anything, just making a claim that happens to align with his existing argument.
People certainly don’t seem better at arithmetic, and readily rely on calculators. Which isn’t necessarily bad, but it speaks to my argument that technology can, and does, cause skills to atrophy.
Can’t help but notice that in addition to being weirdly smug, all you did was show that someone else has come to similar conclusions.
Writing things down is a great way to offload the cognitive load of remembering things.
Fortunately, it’s hard to paywall writing. The same isn’t true for AI.
Maybe yeah. There’s certainly ways it could have played out better.
We teach arithmetic, but are people better or worse at it than before calculators were widely available?
I’m not sure what you mean by “if you recognise the skill as necessary or useful” - but taking a leap, I don’t see how that matters.
If I allow a machine to code for me, and don’t regularly use my own skills, when that machine becomes financially inaccessible, or just breaks down, it doesn’t matter how important I think the skill is - I’ve given it away.
I think also, people forget that open source projects need maintainers who are properly invested.
It’s difficult to imagine a meaningful future for a codebase that you spun up with AI and don’t actually understand yourself.
There’s an expectation of stewardship beyond “yeah I spent 2k on tokens”