Comment AI is just another tool (Score 4, Insightful) 123
In this context, AI is just a compiler that turns human-readable source code into machine-readable code. I mean, gcc does that too. Bison writes C code for you. IDEs help you edit. Spell checkers do your "look in the dictionary" job for you. We've had code-generating tools for a long time now, AI is just another one. Today's programmers are no longer involved in writing assembler, tomorrow's programmers will no longer be involved in writing C. How many of you can do low-level programming *now* ? How many people *today* write low quality programs with the existing tools?
What's different now is that AI disconnects you from the resulting logic in a way that previous tools didn't. Then again, C disconnects you from what the assembler does, just not as much. Python even more so. ESPHome "programs" are just YAML files. This trait enables more people to "write code", which is good, but increases the amount of bad code as much as it increases the good. We as a coding community need to figure out how to map our ideals and ethics to this new tool. What is "open source" if the compiler is an LLM instead of gcc? What is the source code? How do you reproduce or validate LLM-generated programs? Who will be providing the "core intelligence" that LLMs train on? There aren't many people who can write or maintain compilers any more, will we have the same problem with AI in the future? How do we recognize the effort, creativity, and authorship that goes in to "programming" with an LLM?
IMHO taking a general "for" or "against" position wrt AI/LLMs is not useful. We should take positions for or against *how* it's is used, and how we can "use it for good, not evil." Past generations thought computers were unobtainable magic. Today's generation has the Internet in its pocket. Future generations will wonder how we luddites survived without AI. It's up to us to figure out how to get there.
Besides, who doesn't want a compiler that reads the documentation and helps you write code?