No shit
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
785 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
77090 readers
3049 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What's interesting is what he found out. From the article:
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I work in an company who is all-in on selling AI and we are trying desperately to use this AI ourselves. We've concluded internally that AI can only be trusted with small use cases that are easily validated by humans, or for fast prototyping work.. hack day stuff to validate a possibility but not an actual high quality safe and scalable implementation, or in writing tests of existing code, to increase test coverage. yes, I know thats a bad idea but QA blessed the result.... so um .. cool.
The use case we zeroed in on is writing well schema'd configs in yaml or json. Even then, a good percentage of the time the AI will miss very significant mandatory sections, or add hallucinations that are unrelated to the task at hand. We then can use AI to test AI's work, several times using several AIs. And to a degree, it'll catch a lot of the issues, but not all. So we then code review and lint with code we wrote that AI never touched, and send all the erroring configs to a human. It does work, but cant be used for mission critical applications. And nothing about the AI or the process of using it is free. Its also disturbingly not idempotent. Did it fail? Run it again a few times and it'll pass. We think it still saves money when done at scale, but not as much as we promise external AI consumers. The Senior leadership know its currently overhyped trash and pressure us to use it anyway on expectations it'll improve in the future, so we give the mandatory crisp salute of alignment and we're off.
I will say its great for writing yearly personnel reviews. It adds nonsense and doesnt get the whole review correct, but it writes very flowery stuff so managers dont have to. So we use it for first drafts and then remove a lot of the true BS out of it. If it gets stuff wrong, oh well, human perception is flawed.
This is our shared future. One of the biggest use cases identified for the industry is health care. Because its hard to assign blame on errors when AI gets it wrong, and AI will do whatever the insurance middle men tell it to do.
I think we desperately need a law saying no AI use in health care decisions, before its too late. This half-assed tech is 100% going to kill a lot of sick people.
At work there's a lot of rituals where processes demand that people write long internal documents that no one will read, but management will at least open it up, scroll and be happy to see such long documents with credible looking diagrams, but never read them, maybe looking at a sentence or two they don't know, but nod sagely at.
LLM can generate such documents just fine.
Incidentally an email went out to salespeople. It told them they didn't need to know how to code or even have technical skills, they code just use Gemini 3 to code up whatever a client wants and then sell it to them. I can't imagine the mind that thinks that would be a viable business strategy, even if it worked that well.
load more comments
(5 replies)
AI is hot garbage and anyone using it is a skillless hack. This will never not be true.
While this is a popular sentiment, it is not true, nor will it ever be true.
AI (LLMs & agents in the coding context, in this case) can serve as both a tool and a crutch. Those who learn to master the tools will gain benefit from them, without detracting from their own skill. Those who use them as a crutch will lose (or never gain) their own skills.
Some skills will in turn become irrelevent in day-to-day life (as is always the case with new tech), and we will adapt in turn.
load more comments
(2 replies)
ask your ai pal for help
To quote your quote:
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.
I think the author just independently rediscovered "middle management". Indeed, when you delegate the gruntwork under your responsibility, those same people are who you go to when addressing bugs and new requirements. It's not on you to effect repairs: it's on your team. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. The idea that relying on AI to do nuanced work like this and arrive at the exact correct answer to the problem, is naive at best. I'd be sweating too.