← Back to context

Comment by bayindirh

19 days ago

This is the future envisioned by Microsoft. Vibe coding all the way down, social network style.

They are putting this in front of the developers as take it or leave it deal. I left the platform, doing my coding old way, hosting it somewhere else.

Discoverability? I don't care. I'm coding it for myself and hosting in the open. If somebody finds it, nice. Otherwise, mneh.

12 comments

bayindirh

Reply
worldsayshi  18 days ago

As long as the resulting PR is less than 100 lines and the AI is a bit more self sufficient (like actually making sure tests pass before "pushing") it would be ok I think. I think this process is intended for fixing papercuts rather than building anything involved. It just isn't good enough yet.

  • bayindirh  18 days ago

    As a matter of principle I don't use any network which is trained on non-consensual data ripped of its source and license information.

    Other than that, I don't think this is bad tech, however, this brings another slippery slope. Today it's as you say:

    > I think this process is intended for fixing papercuts rather than building anything involved. It just isn't good enough yet.

    After sufficient T somebody will rephrase it as:

    > I think this process is intended for writing small, personal utilities rather than building enterprise software. It just isn't good enough yet.

    ...and we will iterate from there.

    So, it looks like I won't touch it for the foreseeable future. Maybe if the ethical problems with training material is solved (i.e. trained with data obtained with consensus and with correct licenses), I can use as alongside other analysis and testing tools I use, for a final pass.

    AI will never be a core and irreplaceable part of my development workflow.

    • MonkeyClub  18 days ago

      > AI will never be a core and irreplaceable part of my development workflow.

      Unless AI use becomes a KPI in your annual review.

      Duolingo did that just recently, for example.

      I am developing serious regrets for conflating "computing as a medium for personal expression" with "computing for livelihood" early on.

      1 reply →

    • worldsayshi  18 days ago

      I feel there's a fundamental flaw in this mindset which I probably don't understand enough layers of to explain properly. Maybe it's my thinking here that is fundamentally flawed? Off the top of my head:

      If we let intellectual property be a fundamental principle the line between idea (that can't be owned) and ip (that can be owned) will eventually devolve into a infinitely complex fractal that nobody can keep track of. Only lawyer AI's will eventually be able to tell the difference between idea and ip as the complexity of what we can encode become more complex. Why is weights not code when it clearly contain the ability to produce the code? Is a brain code? Are our experiences like code?

      What is the fundamental reason that a person is allowed to train on ip but a bot is not? I suspect that this comes down to the same issue with the divide between ip and idea. But there might be some additional dimension to it. At some point we will need to see some AI as conscious entities and to me it makes little sense that there would be some magical discrete moment where an AI becomes conscious and gets rights to it's "own ideas".

      Or maybe there's a simple explanation of the boundary between ip and idea that I have just missed? If not, I think intellectual property as a concept will not stand the test of time. Other principles will need to take its place if we want to maintain the fight for a good society. Until then IP law still has its place and should be followed but as an ethical principle it's certainly showing cracks.

      2 replies →

signa11  18 days ago

> I left the platform, doing my coding old way, hosting it somewhere else.

may you please let me know where are you hosting the code ? would love to migrate as well.

thank you !