this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
784 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

77090 readers
3049 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
784
I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right. (open.substack.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I'm just sharing this because I found it insightful.

The author describes himself as a "fractional CTO"(no clue what that means, don't ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):

I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.

I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.

Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] khepri@lemmy.world 24 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

They are useful for doing the kind of boilerplate boring stuff that any good dev should have largely optimized and automated already. If it's 1) dead simple and 2) extremely common, then yeah an LLM can code for you, but ask yourself why you don't have a time-saving solution for those common tasks already in place? As with anything LLM, it's decent at replicating how humans in general have responded to a given problem, if the problem is not too complex and not too rare, and not much else.

[–] lambdabeta@lemmy.ca 22 points 16 hours ago

Thats exactly what I so often find myself saying when people show off some neat thing that a code bot "wrote" for them in x minutes after only y minutes of "prompt engineering". I'll say, yeah I could also do that in y minutes of (bash scripting/vim macroing/system architecting/whatever), but the difference is that afterwards I have a reusable solution that: I understand, is automated, is robust, and didn't consume a ton of resources. And as a bonus I got marginally better as a developer.

Its funny that if you stick them in an RPG and give them an ability to "kill any level 1-x enemy instantly, but don't gain any xp for it" they'd all see it as the trap it is, but can't see how that's what AI so often is.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

As you said, "boilerplate" code can be script generated - and there are IDEs that already do this, but in a deterministic way, so that you don't have to proof-read every single line to avoid catastrophic security or crash flaws.