This is a complete misread of what this means. Drones are used to kill people, not other drones. Drones are last priority targets in basically all cases except for strategic defensive positions. This switch means more death at the hands of less (or no) people. It’s like arguing that nukes are good because they’re so destructive that they’ll end war. Which is the opposite of what they did, wars just became proxy wars in an attempt to drain your adversary of resources, instead of direct conflict to stop them. We have more international conflict now than at any point in human history. This will make that even worse.

is a bug, not a feature

Umm, excuse me. We’re delivering 400 points worth of story work with 40 points worth of dev time. Do you think that that’s somehow a bad thing? Our budget is stretching further than ever! (Once we figure out how to reduce token costs) /s

The issue is more that the triangle of code that works, code that scales well, and code that’s cheap will always, ALWAYS, prioritize works and is cheap, even if every action taken from then on costs more to make. I’ve been on a team that focused effort on keeping scalability a priority and every single thing we tried got kneecapped to “keep to the budget”.

I don’t disagree. Most generative AI models are some variant on “plagiarism machine”, but categorizing and identifying data are extremely useful things that AI does.

LLMs are good at quickly generating code, but the issue in software is rarely how fast humans can write code. In fact, more speed with less understanding is a really bad combination (I am a developer working DevOps and anecdotally I see way more large scale bugs now than I did 5 years ago).

Agentic AI is, unfortunately, just an LLM pretending to be a person, and that’s a really bad thing. Like so incredibly bad. Did you know that humans are statistically more likely to make mistakes when under pressure? Cause the LLMs sure do. Create a narrative of pressure and the LLM cracks like a rotten egg. Cause that’s more statistically likely!

Not a paradox. It plagiarizes because it isn’t capable of creating thoughts. It creates statistically likely combinations of tokens. Those “statistically likely” models were made by stealing a whole bunch of information.

The model hallucinates because it doesn’t actually know what any of the tokens mean, just that they exist in a likely probability space.

If you took two papers about a very similar subject, copied them both out in their entirety, then replaced similar phrases from one copy into the other, the resultant paper would both contain inaccuracies and would be plagiarism. That’s the same thing ai does, except the copies are the sum total of the digitized human written work. Increasing the number of sources you’re plagiarizing from doesn’t magically make it not plagiarism!

Hmmmm, not much actual use for the hallucinating plagiarism machine, but I do see your point.