Excerpt:
“Even within the coding, it’s not working well,” said Smiley. “I’ll give you an example. Code can look right and pass the unit tests and still be wrong. The way you measure that is typically in benchmark tests. So a lot of these companies haven’t engaged in a proper feedback loop to see what the impact of AI coding is on the outcomes they care about. Lines of code, number of [pull requests], these are liabilities. These are not measures of engineering excellence.”
Measures of engineering excellence, said Smiley, include metrics like deployment frequency, lead time to production, change failure rate, mean time to restore, and incident severity. And we need a new set of metrics, he insists, to measure how AI affects engineering performance.
“We don’t know what those are yet,” he said.
One metric that might be helpful, he said, is measuring tokens burned to get to an approved pull request – a formally accepted change in software. That’s the kind of thing that needs to be assessed to determine whether AI helps an organization’s engineering practice.
To underscore the consequences of not having that kind of data, Smiley pointed to a recent attempt to rewrite SQLite in Rust using AI.
“It passed all the unit tests, the shape of the code looks right,” he said. It’s 3.7x more lines of code that performs 2,000 times worse than the actual SQLite. Two thousand times worse for a database is a non-viable product. It’s a dumpster fire. Throw it away. All that money you spent on it is worthless."
All the optimism about using AI for coding, Smiley argues, comes from measuring the wrong things.
“Coding works if you measure lines of code and pull requests,” he said. “Coding does not work if you measure quality and team performance. There’s no evidence to suggest that that’s moving in a positive direction.”
So is this just early adaptation problems? Or are we starting to find the ceiling for Ai?
The “ceiling” is the fact that no matter how fast AI can write code, it still needs to be reviewed by humans. Even if it passes the tests.
As much as everyone thinks they can take the human review step out of the process with testing, AI still fucks up enough that it’s a bad idea. We’ll be in this state until actually intelligent AI comes along. Some evolution of machine learning beyond LLMs.
We just need another billion parameters bro. Surely if we just gave the LLMs another billion parameters it would solve the problem…
That’s actually three 0s too short, at the very least
Nah, that’s the weekly interaction.
(Ok, in reality, this meme is 3 or 4 years old by now. Back then, he was asking for those absurd numbers yearly.)
One smoldering Earth later….
something i keep thinking about: is the electricity and water usage actually cheaper than a human? i feel like once the vc money dries up the whole thing will be incredibly unsustainable.
Yep. The methodology of LLMs is effectively an evolution of Markov chains. If someone hadn’t recently change the definition of AI to include “the illusion of intelligence” we wouldn’t be calling this AI. It’s just algorithmic with a few extra steps to try keep the algorithm on-topic.
These types.of things, we have all the time in generative algorithms. I think LLMs being more publicly seen is why someone started calling it AI now.
So we’ve basically hit the ceiling straight out of the gate and progress is not quicker or slower. We’ll have another step forward in predictive algorithms in the future, but not now. It’s usually a once a decade thing and varies in advancement.
People have been trying to call things “AI” for at least the last half century (with varying degrees of success). They were chomping at the bit for this before most of us here were even alive.
We are at end-stage capitalism and things other than scientific discoveries and technological engineering marvels are driving the show now. Money is made regardless of reality, and cultural shifts follow the money. Case in point: we too here are calling this “AI”.
Of course LISP machines didn’t crash the hardware market and make up 50 % of the entire economy. Other than that it’s, as Shirley Bassey put it, all just a little bit of history repeating.
I realized the fundamental limitation of the current generation of AI: it’s not afraid of fucking up. The fear of losing your job is a powerful source of motivation to actually get things right the first time.
And this isn’t meant to glorify toxic working environments or anything like that; even in the most open and collaborative team that never tries to place blame on anyone, in general, no one likes fucking up.
So you double check your work, you try to be reasonably confident in your answers, and you make sure your code actually does what it’s supposed to do. You take responsibility for your work, maybe even take pride in it.
Even now we’re still having to lean on that, but we’re putting all the responsibility and blame on the shoulders of the gatekeeper, not the creator. We’re shooting a gun at a bulletproof vest and going “look, it’s completely safe!”
I just feel good when things I make are good so I try to make them good. Fear is a terrible motivator for quality
In my experience, around 50% of (professional) developers do not take pride in their work, nor do they care.
I agree. And in my experience, that 50% have been the quickest and most eager to add LLMs to their workflow.
And when they do, the quality of their code goes up
I agree we’re better off firing them, but I’m not their manager and I do appreciate stuff with less memory leaks and SQL injections
The amount of their output goes up. More importantly, they excrete code faster than good developers equipped with AI, simply because they don’t bother to review generated code. So now they are seen as top performers instead of always lagging behind like it was before AI.
Whether it actually results in better code is debatable, especially in the long run.
Its early adoption problems in the same way as putting radium in toothpaste was. There are legitimate, already growing uses for various AI systems but as the technology is still new there’s a bunch of people just trying to put it in everything, which is innevitably a lot of places where it will never be good (At least not until it gets much better in a way that LLMs fundementally never can be due to the underlying method by which they work)
bright white teeth are highly overrated, glow in the dark teeth, well…wouldn’t a cheap little night light work even better than a radioactive mouth?
“Work” at what purpose, selling product and making investors money? Presumably, no.
My job has me working on AI stuff and it reminds me a lot of Internet technology back in the 90s.
For instance: I’m creating a local model to integrate with our MCP server. It took a lot of fiddling with a Modelfile for it to use the tools the MCP has installed. And it needs 20GB of VRAM to give reasonably accurate responses.
The amount of fiddling and checking and rough edges feel like writing JavaScript 1.0, or the switchover to HTML4.
Companies get a lot of praise for having AI products, but the reality isn’t nearly as flashy as they make it out to be. I’m seeing some usefulness in it as I learn more, but it’s not nearly what the hype machine says.
I also remember the Internet being fiddly as fuck and questionably useful during the dialup days.
AI is improving a lot faster than Internet did. It was like a decade before we got broadband and another before we had wifi.
By that logic, people shitting on AI will look very quaint in a decade or so.
“Why do I have to take 5 extra steps to just quickly save a file onto my computer, without needing literally everything on the cloud, especially if I am on a laptop on a device currently in airplane mode, most likely in a literal airplane in an area without reliable Internet connectivity?”
Also consider that there are places - third world nations, and so very MANY areas within supposedly “first-world” ones - that do not have reliable Internet, even today. The KISS principle still applies now, as it did back then too. Your argument screams privileged access, without acknowledging those basic precepts, including perpetual access to subscription services, which must always be maintained, e.g. even after someone retires.
And I disagree in that arguments of the form “LLMs currently do not perform better than my own human effort, in my inexperienced hands at least” will be outdated a decade from now. If LLMs get better, then they will become the musings of people who struggled with early tech before it was fully ready, which does not somehow invalidate their veracity especially in the historical sense.
The Internet is and always will be fiddly. We just keep making it so easy that it looks like magic.
Those of us with eyes have already seen the ceiling of currently available GenAI “solutions,” which is synonymous with early adoption problems.
The technology will evolve, and the same basic problems will exist. The article has good points about how structured acceptance criteria will need to be more strictly enforced.
Removed by mod
Early adaptation and rushed implementation. There may be a bubble bursting for the businesses who tried to “roll out something fast that is good enough to get subscribers for a few months so we can cash in.” However, this is just the very beginning of AI.
This isn’t the “very beginning”, that was either 70 or 120 years ago, depending on whether you’re counting from the formalization of “AI” as an academic discipline with the advent of the Markov Decision Process or the earlier foundational work on Markov Chains.
Chatbots are old-hat, I was playing around with Eliza back in the 90’s. Hell, even Large Language Models aren’t new, the transformer architecture they’re based on is almost 10 years old and itself merely a minor evolution of earlier statistical and recurrent neural network language processing models. By the time big tech started ramping up the “AI” bubble in 2024, I had already been bored with LLMs for two years.
There’s no “early adaptation” here, just a rushed and wildly excessive implementation of a very interesting but fundamentally untrustworthy tech with no practical value proposition for the people it is nevertheless being sold to.
It’s the beginning of AI in terms of where it will be.
What’s the pathway that you see from the current slop machine to something that will provide a Return on Investment. I haven’t heard anyone credible willing to go out on the limb of saying that there is one, but maybe you will convince me.
I think when you introduce a question like that you’ve already said that no matter what the person answers, you will find a way to argue against it. So, I’m choosing not to interact with you.
The beauty of the scientific method is that it can change when presented with new data or a novel interpretation of existing data. I much prefer science to hype and feelings. You provide me accurate convincing arguments for how we get from the current system to an actual Artificial Intelligence, or something that roughly approximates it I am all ears. My take is that AI is the new cold fusion, it’s always going to be a few years and a few hundred billion dollars away from reality. But what do I know, I’m just an idiot on the internet.
I’m not interested in trying to change the mind of someone who I feel has already made up their mind.
If you can prove to me, by linking to past conversations, that you have the ability to change your mind when new evidence is presented, then I will attempt to do so. But until then, I will choose not to engage in such activities with you.
Oh precious. You want me to prove to you that someone presented a viewpoint that was diametrically opposed to my own and then successfully argued me around to their way of thinking? It hasn’t happened yet, not on this platform, and I shall not be linking this profile to other platforms I comment on where I have had convincing arguments sway my point of view. But surely you will be the first, you’re better than all my other interlocuters right?
Why did you waste time posting this when you could have just not?
Could you try rephrasing that in a way that makes sense?
You understand it.
No, I’m afraid I don’t.
The beginning of the development of “AI” is temporal, not spatial, unless you are referring to the path of development which, for no obvious reason, you refuse to trace backwards as well as forwards.
︋︆︆︅︌︈︄︂︆︄︃︃︈︄︄︊︎︃︆︀︆︌︉︌︈︍︋︈︇︊︁︄︆Y︄︄︀︇︈︁︀︈︅︍︂︂︄︉︎︊︌︌︀︂︋︃о︆︆︄︍︄︀︇︈︎︇︆︁︍︉︍︌︎︌︅︈︋︁︅︆u︄︃︅︎︎︅︁︋︃︆︈︃︈︄︋︇︅︃︎︂︎︄︊︆︂︇︋’︇︄︀︃︂︊︁︉︅︁︃︁︎︀︇︁︁︇︅︂︂︊︋︇︄︁l︁︍︄︋︈︌︄︌︅︋︉︊︍︍︃︉︈︇︇︎︈︉︁︍︈︋︉l︌︀︄︊︊︅︈︈︍︉︊︋︅︁︉︋︉︅︋︉︇︎︋︄︆︌︄︁︈ ︈︃︋︈︌︀︈︎︀︂︉︄︅︊︋︈︈︀︈︆︇︎︊︁g︍︇︀︀︎︂︍︀︂︋︀︉︉︃︆︊︄︌︉︈︈︎︎︈︍︉︃︂︊︂︁︃︃︈︎︋е︁︂︆︁︃︆︄︍︃︄︅︉︎︍︇︈︌︄︅︄t︃︇︈︁︈︋︆︄︈︅︁︊︀︄︄︌︃︈︄︇︍︁ ︌︌︁︂︁︂︈︍︄︅︀︊︍︁︊︎︉︎︊︂︆︎︋︄︂︋︂︂︈︃i︁︊︃︁︌︇︇︊︉︈︋︅︀︂︅︁︌︄︉︊︎︅︊︀︆︂︋︆︍︅︆︋︆︂︃︈︌︂︋t︌︅︉︍︅︋︆︊︃︋︆︂︎︅︎︍︄︋︆︎︋︀︆ ︀︉︍︍︆︃︈︋︀︋︍︂︈︁︀︂︄︌︁︉︍︄︊е︎︌︂︆︊︊︌︍︄︈︄︉︄︌︎︌︅︋︀︆︄︉︃︁︇︌︊v︇︀︍︆︁︁︌︆︇︌︊︃︆︍︇︉︈︁︋︈︁︂︁︊︁︁︎︆︎︎︉︆е︌︄︉︈︄︌︉︈︀︃︆︎︈︉︀︎︍︌︁︄︄︅︁︌︋︇︊︃︇︋︃︉︉n︌︇︆︇︉︋︉︄︄︌︎︁︃︅︁︆︋︉︁︅︀︉︎︎︇︋︌︉t︄︈︅︎︋︊︋︋︊︉︄︍︂︅︌︊︆︅︁︅︋︇︃︍u︀︌︈︌︉︃︋︇︈︇︊︀︎︈︈︇︍︊︃︄︀︉︍︅︍а︀︁︄︁︌︍︅︉︅︁︇︃︍︉︀︂︋︍︌︆︍︎︌︀︀︇︉︆︉︇l︉︌︀︋︇︄︅︅︈︊︌︍︊︍︀︉︎︃︎︁︃︌︇l︆︈︍︎︌︁︂︃︂︄︈︍︀︎︊︀︀︉︉︄︂︍︃︋у︄︅︈︌︀︅︅︀︁︍︎︋︁︋︌︋︄︅︅︅︉︈︍︄︈︎︃︂︂︌︇︅︉︌︀︀
If I’m not getting it immediately then you’re communicating your point ineffectively.
What, precisely, do you mean when you assert that the last three to six generations of work on “AI” don’t count?