> I struggle with the "good guys vs bad guys" framing here.

It's because generative AI has become part of the "culture wars" and is therefore black and white to lots of people.

It really doesn't matter though.

> Is a small indie dev "dodgy" if they use AI to unblock a tricky C# problem so they can actually finish their game?

No amount of framing (unless written into law) would stop small indie devs from doing this. AI is just too efficient, making too much sense economically. People who are willing to starve for their ideology is always the minority.

Even artisans who build hand-made wooden furniture use power tools today. The tools that make economical sense will prevail one way or another.

I think that presumes that an LLM is capable of "unblocking a tricky C# problem" that a group of humans cannot with research. LLMs don't understand the code they output; they just regurgitate code that's already in their training set (the proof is in the pudding; see the many posts on HN about these LLM coding assistants outputting copyrighted code token for token).

So if the tricky C# problem isn't already in their data set, the output of the LLM is, at best, random crap. Even the worst human effort would exceed the output of the LLM, and that is the average case for any "tricky" problem. LLMs are fundamentally only useful on the most common types of problems that are can better be addressed by using frameworks, plugins, or APIs.

(And on that note: every programmer I've met who says that LLM coding agents 10x'd their output is the type of programmer that would have been PIP'd or fired 10 years ago for incompetence. We used to call them "code monkeys" for obvious reasons. Junior programmers think that LLM coding agents are awesome because they don't have the experience or skill to understand just how bad the output of LLM coding agents is, and the few that survive in the industry long enough to become senior programmers will laugh at their younger selves at how much of an unmaintainable mess they made vibe coding.)

I think most people don't have an issue with the models themselves, just the big service providers who are up to some very shady and possibly illegal stuff.

Personally I'd rather a future where everyone used local models.

> Is a small indie dev "dodgy" if they use AI to unblock a tricky C# problem so they can actually finish their game?

What about learning the tools you use everyday by yourself?

> a solo dev using GenAI for texture variants

While not as bad as firing 500 people, using ai to generate slop (and it is inherently slop due to being generated quickly by ai) is still bad.

I think the only people they're calling "dodgy" are the ones offering these AI tools, and not the people using them.

Yeah. This has been an interesting cultural shift, especially with “the kids”. I’ve had at least a few people passionately tell me that using (non-generative, non-LLM) AI to assist with social network content moderation, is unethical, because it takes away jobs from people. Mind you, these are jobs in which people are exposed to CSAM, gore, etc. A fact that does not dissuade people of this view. There are certainly some sensible arguments against using “AI” for content moderation. This is not one of them.

It’s really intriguing how an increasingly popular view of what’s “ethical” is anything that doesn’t stand in the way of the ‘proletariat’ getting their bag, and anything that protects content creators’ intellectual property rights, with no real interest in the greater good.

Such a dramatic shift from the music piracy generation a mere decade or two ago.

It’s especially intriguing as a non-American.

Again, as you say, many sensible arguments against AI, but for some people it really takes a backseat to “they took our jerbs!”

Yup. The problem was never with the technology replacing work, it was always with the social aspect of deploying it, that ends up pulling the rug under people whose livelihood depend on exchanging labor for money.

The luddites didn't destroy automatic looms because they hated technology; they did it because losing their jobs and seeing their whole occupation disappear ruined their lives and lives of their families.

The problem to fix isn't automation, but preventing it from destroying people's lives at scale.

I personally wish for the time when AI can replace everything I can do (at least in my current field). I'm not sure how exactly I'll feel about it then, but it'd be a technological advancement I'd enjoy seeing in my lifetime.

One question perhaps is, even if AI can do everything I can do (i.e., has the skills for it), will it do everything I do? I'm sure there are many people in the world with the superset of my skills, yet I bet there are some things only I'm doing, and I don't think a really smart AI will change that.

I would like for an AI to do my work, unfortunately I have to buy food and pay my rent.

The Industrial Revolution caused a great deal of damage. It was a net positive in the long term because new jobs were created to replace those that were lost, but it took decades and enormous violence. Now, the promise of AI is that it will be more efficient than any human being. If this becomes a reality, there will be, by definition, no new jobs created for the people replaced by AI.

Would being the operating word here. In a capitalist economy with wage labour, it is a catastrophe.

Does this argument still work if LLMs end up increasing unemployment and making it a lot harder for graduates to find good jobs? Who is it good for in that case, the shareholders? It's nice if humans can always create more jobs, but that's not what the tech bros are promising investors. They're making claims about how AI is going to seriously reduce the need for human labor. Programming, writing and art are just the starting ground for what's coming, if their predictions are anywhere close to being correct.

[dead]

Strongly agree. It's like saying using a knife to prepare dinner is immoral because some people stab other people. I'm highly skeptical of AI, but that particular argument makes the whole article fall pretty flat to me.

> then have rest of the day off to enjoy things I like

But that's not what companies expect from you, even if you owns AI. They expect you to output more, and when you do, someone else is probably out of work.

Well, maybe Marx was onto something with all that talking about production means ownership...

There is a difference here, though. Compilers and the languages they enable aren't out-and-out ripping off previous creations.

Lots of folks are mad about how the power of these tools comes from training things they put out in the open but didn't intend to be used to enrich or exclude others like this technology is enabling.

Interesting times ahead... it's so powerful people who ignore it are going to get left behind to some degree. (I say this as someone who actively avoids kubernetes and it does give off the vibe I've been left behind compared to my peers who do resume driven development.)

How often does your compiler introduce bugs into your code?

No it's not. AI is a lossy snapshot of existing internet content. It's not going to innovate by virtue of what it is. It's a Chinese room using human language to pretend to be one of us. It's disgusting.

I don’t really see how this is an AI issue. We use AI all the time for code generation but if you put this on my desk with specific instructions to be light on review and it’s not a joke, I’m probably checking to see if you’re still on probation because that’s an attitude that’s incompatible with making good software.

People with this kind of attitude existed long before AI and will continue to exist.

Try to comply to an infosec standard. Typically one of many compliance controls are "every change must be reviewed and approved by another person". So no one can push on their own.

I know folks tend to frown on security compliances, but if you honestly implement and maintain most of the controls in there, not just to get a certificate -- it really make a lot of sense and improves security/clarity/risks.

One should not be able to push to prod on their own especially in the middle of the night? Unless its a critical fix

If I could at all help it, I would simply not work somewhere with that sort of engineering culture. Huge red flag.

There’s a weird thing going on - I can see value in using LLM’s to put something together so you can see it rather than investing time to do it properly initially.

But to just copy, paste and move on… terrible.

I'm pretty certain it will be. It's a society thing. Much in the same way you have "artisan" items or "organic" food, a similar thing seems like an obvious development of ai in society. Very easy to apply a value and morality system to something like the implications of ai.

I read it as "compared to others, in the current context".

If you take some percent longer to finish a some code, because you want that code to maintain some level of "purity", you'll finish slower than others. If his is a creative context, you'll spend more time on boilerplate than interesting stuffs. If this is a profit driven context, you'll make less money, less money for staff. Etc.

> If you’re not willing to risk being “left behind”...

I think this is orthogonal. Some tools increase productivity. Using a tool doesn't blind a component person...they just have an another tool under their belt to use if they personally find it valuable.

I suspect a subpopulation of software development is going to become a bit religious, for a short while, split into "morally pure anti AI" and those who are busy using software as a means to an end to solve some real world problem. I think the tools will eventually be embraced, out of necessity, as they become more practically useful (being somewhere around "somewhat useful" right now).

As a result, I think we'll eventually see a mean shift from rewarding those that are "technically competent" more towards those that are "practically creative" (I assume the high end technical competence will always be safe).

No they aren't.

Getting annoying, yes, not more annoying than the actual slop, though, that's ridiculous.