Are u talking about incurring technical debt from the generated AI code that vastly out prices the original low cost of using AI. I cannot answer ur question on how big is one compared to the other but I have an idea that can sideline them. I don't think it will matter, AI is so exceptionally good at generating just good enough spam, so exceptionally good at delivering a shitty minimally viable product that it might warp the expectations and needs of consumers. Where the new shittyness becomes the new norm because it drowns out everything else around it with shear volume. People around me prefer to generate their Dungeons and Dragons characters and cities with AI because it good enough even though it looks painfully bad and often doesn't completely fit their vision. Music songs are being composed for small communities almost constantly at the moment because people do not want to bother to go out of their way to find a real human composer.
It's easy, it's fast and it gets the point across. Quality is only encouraged socially, people don't really care that much about quality. Rather people have 100 things they care about in their lives - an app for their groceries, a small game of their own idea to show to friends and play, a piece of music about that one time their group of friends got drunk and went into the mountains to fight a bear that in the end turned out to be some old granpa's cow. And only one or two which are important enough to spend the effort to find a quality product.
For software - the places where hard identifiable metric matter... Sensors, weapons, performance, networking, etc. They won't be replaced by AI's any time soon but so many other types of product imo will be assimilated by the machine. All desktop apps for regular people, all websites for blogs, posting, sharing. Probably most IoT related things in your own home
It is hilarious that the machines will first devour the industries that need more feelings and ideas rather then raw precision.
"I believe this is not the case because: XXX" would be a neutral response. And one that most people would give to most other strangers if they are meeting in real life. But on the internet it happens very often that people aren't actually as respectful as they would be in real life. And it happens very naturally too - I have close friends who have had insane arguments over chat apps which they would never have done in an eye to eye situation.
In general responding with a statement that assigns a quality to someone's work and effort is not appropriate. You can say "That information is not correct" if you want to be assertive but saying "You have not researched or read the correct information" is doing more then correcting information and becomes personal.
I've seen a lot of people, myself included have trouble with this distinction. But I have found it to be an important part of being "considerate" of others and being charismatic to them. People really react differently to the smallest of nuance in tone and wording regardless if they are adults. (I'd actually wager adults react much more strongly to that nuance due to having more experience to tell the nuances apart)
The author has shared information that he had discovered the scammers are operating in Spain and Italy as well. So it is not specifically because of language similarity.
I also disagree with that advice and believe it to be an anti pattern. Code readability can suffer massively from multiple modules. It depends on the use case and particilar function so this kind of advice should not be a general rule but rather a unique decision should be made for each different situation.
Very uncomfortable truth (imo) for many developers who prefer to find abstractions and general all encompassing advice. I have found that the correct placement of functions in files/classes is a "sense" that is improved solely with experience and is never truly complete. It is after all about communicating intent to other human beings for which there are no hard rules.
I don't know about that. Music is as much mathematics as playing basketball is physics. Musicians I have met, just do it completely intuitively, they can just feel it. Yes you can describe all notes, their relationships and their resonances with mathematics, but you can do that with anything and everything. That is the very point of mathematics - to describe things.
I think it is odd to say that something is mathematical, when all things can looked at through the lenses of mathematics.
Also for tasks that have clear indications of varying degrees of success. Like throwing a ball in a basket. Yes absolutely computers and AI will in time do them better than humans ever will.
But for music once you make a song that is perceived as "good" or "not bad", there is no such thing as better or worse, it becomes entirely subjective. So I do not know if it is possible for anything to be better than something else. For composers and music makers we often assign celebrity status and perceive some greater than others, but really the music some create is not better than the rest.
Maybe AI will be able to demonstrate technical prowess beyond human ability like be able to instantly write down all 15 sounding notes in a given beat in a song. But it does not make sense for it to better at creating music than humans in general.
I was the type that played a lot of competitive games when growing up - mostly League of Legends and some CS GO. I got quite good at at LoL and over the years have noticed that feeling of being good at something is so surreal. In LoL I developed game sense and just knew stuff before it happened - I could forsee something that would happen in a game where theoretically every game is different.
After I learned to program I noticed that feeling of "game" sense can be developed for programming as well. When I am debugging something or looking at some code, I just "feel" stuff about the code, like the feeling of being reading through a function that is obviously doing that X thing. You just know without reading it whole. And you know where and how it is used without seeing it before hand. This is really enchanced for code that is written in a style that you are used to.
I believe all skills develop such an extra sense and the satisfaction from using it is really high. I think a lot of people refer to this as intuition but to me particularly it feels like something that is part of the sensations of my body.
Humans don't piggyback on language (assuming you mean) for intelligence and emotions. Emotions predate language by miles and they don't even have to be consciously thought of, much less expressed through language. Doubly so for people who do not have an inner voice and do not even use a language to think. Body language exists as the simplest example of this.
As for intelligence I honestly believe the mind uses whatever tools it sees fit for a task. Sometimes when you think about a problem it is through words, sometimes it is through visuals and sometimes it is just felt.
This argument is being made for every single skill that AI assimilates from humans. Of course neural nets are doing "exactly" the same - their whole end goal is to simulate what humans seem to do.
But the reason we ask ourselves if AI genereted X in masse is legal or not is not about how things work, but what their impact is to living human beings. Laws are about protecting humans.
"That's pretty telling how the community feels about being used as training data"
I don't think most of the replies on SO mention this directly, they mostly focus on how this will impact the site's quality negatively. But really you are correct that people don't like being used as training data and imo the "arguments" everyone are making against AI disadvantages on SO, on art sites, on wherever else are pretty much "excuses". Quoted because even if they are correct they are just excuses for the core much more ethical issue - humans don't want to be replaced. Being replaced by a machine is even shittier. Being replaced by a machine that exploited your own hard work against you even more so.
In a real world example if my boss hired a junior whom I must mentor with the sole purpose of me being fired and replaced so he can pay him less. Well that would be considered very unethical even though it does happen and many workers do put up with it. Yet the current AI movement is that on an unprecedented scale and to the people being replaced it must feel like a massive bitch slap in the face.
To me it seems like an extreme expression of power and it's bizzare how many people are fine with it.
I completely agree. I do not understand why some people are downvoting you. Everyone on this site (assuming at least 95% are developers) should conceptually understand that AI to office jobs is nothing like tractors to farmers. Before AGI it's an arms race between what skill can humans acquire that AI can't yet simulate. After AGI there is no contest.
It's crazy to me how I have memories of AI discussions from years back where this crucial difference was well known and acknowledged. But right now it feels like half the people are turning a blind eye to it on purpose.
I laughed out so hard on your comment. I am sorry it is not because I am laughing at you in any way, but rather how the article when full circle around itself. When it said your quote above and this quote further down:
"The worth of anything – an idea, an activity, an artwork, a relationship with another person – is determined pragmatically: things are good to the extent that they are instrumental, with instrumentality usually defined as the capacity to produce money or things.".
We are trying to explain the purpose(!) of somethings that are not instrumental/useful through the lense of how it became that they are useful sometimes. While the examples of the book writer and that punk bands solitary "useless" activity are great they are immediately followed with the example how they produced something out of it.
It's so full circle that it is ridiculously funny. Our culture is soo usefulness driven that you can barely ever put down those lenses even forcefully.