Google CEO Sundar Pichai says AI will make coding accessible to everyone, but engineers warn that vibe coding still struggles with reliability, complexity, and real-world software demands.
Yeah, no. It is a genuinely useful tool in the hands of people that know how to use it.
People said the same things about calculators, then graphing calculators, then computers, etc. People said the same thing about digital artists. They said the same thing about heavy machinery replacing oxen. They said the same thing over and over again.
Really, really tired of this same braindead cycle repeating. Are there any humans anywhere as a collective that are free thinkers? Anywhere on Earth?
People said the same things about calculators, then graphing calculators, then computers, etc. People said the same thing about digital artists. They said the same thing about heavy machinery replacing oxen. They said the same thing over and over again.
Really, really tired of this same braindead cycle repeating. Are there any humans anywhere as a collective that are free thinkers? Anywhere on Earth?
It’s funny to hear this same, tired line from someone who has adopted a thinking machine to do their thinking for them. Free thinker? Not you.
This is survivorship bias, while I don’t doubt each of those devices had their share of naysayers in their day, the reason they’re still with us is because they did in fact have a use. We are not so far that the same can be said of AI and the current wave of resistance from so many people pushing back is the exact indication of that. It is reality asserting itself.
But really, I just don’t understand how I need so much training to talk to an AI? I thought the purpose was that it would intuitively translate my ideas into action but instead we need to undergo training at work and have special prompt engineers that can poke it effectively enough to get something worthwhile out of it, but even then only after it has likely created several iterations of garbage.
Nevermind the fact that AI and coding simply don’t mix. The purpose of coding is to translate precise logic into exact action. How does AI interpret vague ideas into precise code? You constantly try to write off naysayers as people who don’t understand or haven’t tried it enough and I am telling you, it is exactly those that HAVE looked at it, used it, read about it, see how it was developed and where it’s going that are against it the most.
I do hope your small-mindedness does work out for you, though history has shown being actively hostile to innovation is not a great way to survive rapidly changing environments.
Yeah, no. It is a genuinely useful tool in the hands of people that know how to use it.
People said the same things about calculators, then graphing calculators, then computers, etc. People said the same thing about digital artists. They said the same thing about heavy machinery replacing oxen. They said the same thing over and over again.
Really, really tired of this same braindead cycle repeating. Are there any humans anywhere as a collective that are free thinkers? Anywhere on Earth?
It’s funny to hear this same, tired line from someone who has adopted a thinking machine to do their thinking for them. Free thinker? Not you.
This is survivorship bias, while I don’t doubt each of those devices had their share of naysayers in their day, the reason they’re still with us is because they did in fact have a use. We are not so far that the same can be said of AI and the current wave of resistance from so many people pushing back is the exact indication of that. It is reality asserting itself.
But really, I just don’t understand how I need so much training to talk to an AI? I thought the purpose was that it would intuitively translate my ideas into action but instead we need to undergo training at work and have special prompt engineers that can poke it effectively enough to get something worthwhile out of it, but even then only after it has likely created several iterations of garbage.
Nevermind the fact that AI and coding simply don’t mix. The purpose of coding is to translate precise logic into exact action. How does AI interpret vague ideas into precise code? You constantly try to write off naysayers as people who don’t understand or haven’t tried it enough and I am telling you, it is exactly those that HAVE looked at it, used it, read about it, see how it was developed and where it’s going that are against it the most.
You have no idea who you’re talking to.
I do hope your small-mindedness does work out for you, though history has shown being actively hostile to innovation is not a great way to survive rapidly changing environments.