Having grown up in a PAL country and worked in the TV industry I was told that NTSC stands for "Never Twice the Same Colour".

Pun intended?

I think the problem here is they have used the wrong description of the issue, saying reading is the problem, when they are really talking about reduced concentration and attention span, which is a different problem from the implied literacy issue. When you say "it doesn't have a very good abstract or introduction" that is poor authorship and is all too common with content intended to teach a non-trivial subject such as you would get a university.

Really this is probably a side effect of a society that has changed to a focus on instant gratification and accelerated by apps with infinite feeds of short form content.

Ok, point taken, I think we were considering different situations. I see AI as having great potential but I'm annoyed at the over hyping of what it really can do. The use case you mention is valid for current AI, but I think many users are using it unchecked beyond what should be trusted for and failing to see the problem with that.

You left the most important word in the headline out of your statement: Time. Any work can be consider "useful" but is it a "good use of my time"? That is what the central argument debates.

Yea, but they are not here yet, and won't be until they grow up and get their shit together. Until then you can keep them.

One thing that I find off putting about investing time in working out how to use AI effectively is that is such a fast moving area. It seems to me that by the time you have mastered using one model/environment/work flow it is out of date and you have to start learning the latest different way for doing things. It does make me wonder where your "extra time" is going to come from if the ground is always moving under your feet?

The other issue is what is end game here with control and costs? For my current non-AI development work control is in the hands of the people who set the future path for gcc, and I trust those guys to make small sane changes, and the cost is my time and my local hardware. With the AI being pushed it is all about big tech being in control and once they think you are hooked you can bet the cost will climb to the limits the market will bear. Those AI data centers have to be paid for some how.

I'm ready to use AI when it has matured, is stable, the development community is in control and it runs a open model on my local hardware. At that date I think I will have that "extra time" you refer to.

Really? Sounds like your experience with coding is very different to mine. I verify my code before deploying it, yet there have been occasions when bugs are reported, because of cases I failed to think of and verify. Sorry, but I do not think code verification is easy.

I guess someone from Poland could comment on how that applies there. However you would probably be ok in the USA because as I understand it a police officer beating the shit out of somebody in not classified as a violent crime there anymore.

In flames, or in cost?

Yes, that had occurred to me. However I was trying to avoid the classic "I'm special so AI could never replace me" thinking. Then again given current AI can't actually do critical thinking to solve a problem, but instead is really just trying to pattern match prior art to the stated problem, I figure AI is not ready to replace some coding tasks. Of course those in management who don't understand this limitation are doomed to have poor results.

So for I am just taking a stand back and watch how this plays out approach while trying to keep aware of the current state of the art with AI improvements.

In my most recent experiment I tried to use AI to change some code for an LCD driver to a different driver chip in the same family. For a human a relatively straight forward but time consuming process of comparing the register sets in the two datasheets. It failed, then asking for example references. I gave it one and it still failed. I guess I am too dumb at AI hand holding because I gave up and did it myself.

Since trump doesn't have to pay that $1B per day out of his own money I think he feels it is money well spent giving he achieved his actual objective of stopping the news cycles reporting on the Epstein files. Now all he has to do is refine his lies to shift the blame for high gas prices onto Obama.

Except for trivial cases I don't think that is really true yet. They both produce a result but in many cases the AI version only appears to match the results of the experienced coder, but usually has issues hidden below the surface. AI can be a great thing, but when it comes to coding there is currently a big difference between the hype and the reality.

I find myself wanting to defend his actions, but he did step over a line with the deletions and obscuring it. He should have done some that didn't require the need to obscure it, such as renaming all the files in a reversible way by something like prepending 'ISuckAtCoding' to all file names. Then nothing is lost but time to restore the names, and that time will serve as a real life lesson.

Vibe coding is not just 'new tool', it is a new methodology designed to replace skilled programmers who understand what is wanted and how to properly deliver it with unskilled 'programmers' who only know how to specify what they think they want but with no real understanding of what they have created and the risks that go with that.

Your argument would carry more weight if simply you said that this form of protest is not cool, instead of defending a bad use case for AI. Not all AI is here to stay, only the AI that is actually beneficial. Vibe coding only has a very limited range of valid use cases and most people using it don't understand when it is wrong to use it.