1056
Now listen here you little shit
(media.piefed.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
1056 points (95.0% liked)
Programmer Humor
30474 readers
2309 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I might not be the best, but I can still do a better job than AI
This is a bold claim I will not make.
If you are complete novice then obviously not but I think anyone reasonably proficient in a language would be able to identify optimisations that an AI just doesn't seem to perceive largely because humans are better at context.
It's like that question about whether it's worth driving your car to the car wash if the car wash is only 10 metres away. AIs have no experience of the real world so they don't inherently understand that you can't wash a car if it's not at the car wash. A human would instantly know that that's a stupid statement without even thinking about it, and unless you instruct an AI to actually deeply think about something they just give you the first answer they come up with.
I agree with you. But the tool will output a basic code that mostly do what asked in seconds instead of tens of minutes if not hours. So now we could argue if the optimization you make are worth the added cost I'd writing the code yourself or if it's better to have the tool to generate the code and then optimizing it.
What's why they're pushing for the datacenters, they want to turn make every query that deep. The tech is here, but the ability to sustain it isn't. They build the data centers, kick the developers out, depress the education market for it, and then raise the prices.
Companies will be paying the AI companies 60k per year per seat in a decade.
At that price it would be cheeper to use humans
That's the brilliance. There won't be a pool of trained young developers by then.
What makes you think there will be a decade passing with any result to exist from here?
A tale as old as time. The US nuclear missile codes were 000000, but it didn't matter. The chain of command was purpose-built, ironically, so the front line soldier in a cold war scenario had to make the last decision to delete all life on the planet. Chain of command doesn't matter at that point. You are choosing to kill everyone you know from an order from who knows who. The ultimate checksum.
You will always be better at decisions than an n-dimensional matrix of numbers on an overpriced GPU.
I'd be careful about these claims. Maybe with our current iteration of "attention-based" LLMs, yes. But keep in mind that our way of processing information is strongly limited compared to how much data is fed to these LLMs while training, so they in theory have a lot more foundation to be able to reason about new problems.
We're vastly more capable at the moment at interpreting our limited view on foreign code, being actually creative, find new ways to reason, yes. Capable developers (open source...) often have seen quite a bit more code than the average developer and are highly skilled, still with just a tiny subset of the code that an LLM has seen.
But say these models improve in creativity and "higher-level of thought" through whatever means (e.g. through more reinforcement learning). Well, let's just say I'm careful with these claims. These LLMs are already quite a help with stupid boilerplaty code (less so with novel stuff, and writing idiomatic non-redundant code, but compared to 2-3 years ago it's quite a step already, to the point that they're actually helpful, disregarding all the hype and obvious marketing strategies of these AI-companies)
I don't understand your point about the solider on the front line, but I'm interested. If you get a chance, can you elaborate please?