this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
739 points (95.6% liked)
Programmer Humor
26713 readers
2263 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
if they build software using mainly ai generated code, then they are a bad coder
exactly, you can only really verify the code if you were capable of writing it in the first place.
And it's an old well known fact that reading code is much harder than writing it.
An irrelevant but interesting take is that this applies as an analogue to a lot of stuff in electronics related space.
Getting back to code, you now need to get in the same "wavelength" as the one who wrote the code, at the time they wrote the code.
i like the analogy
I weirdly love reading code and figuring out what it's doing. Debugging is cathartic.
It might take a while and I might be cussing up a storm saying, wtf is this shit? Why the fuck would you do it this way? Why the fuck did you make this convoluted for no reason?
Right now it's unfucking some vibe coded bs where instead of just fixing an API to get the info we needed accurately, it's trying to infer it from other data. Like, there is a super direct and simple route, but instead there are hundreds of lines to work around hitting the wrong endpoint and getting data missing the details we need.
Plus letting the vibe add so much that is literally never used, was never needed, and on top of that returns incorrect information.
enjoying it is a different issue. You probably enjoy it because it's more difficult, which is perfectly valid reasoning
Exactly how I feel about it as well.
Even if you're the one that built, programmed, and trained the AI when nothing else like it existed?
So? Some of the people pushing out ai slop would be perfectly capable of writing their own llm out of widely available free tools. Contrary to popular belief, they are not complex pieces of software, just extremely data hungry. Does not mean they magically understand the code output by the llm when it spits out something.
Stark would have developed their own way of training their AI. It wouldn't be an LLM in the first place.
and he stil wouldn't understand its output. Because as we clearly see, he doesn't even try to look at it.
What if it were just a really big Expert system?
That's usually the thing that you call AI players or COM players in computer games.
given that expert systems are pretty much just a big ball of if-then statements, then he might be considered to have written the app. Just with way more extra steps.
so? someone invented current llms too. Nothing like them existed before either. If they vibe coded with them they'd still be producing slop.
Coding an llm is very very easy. What's not easy is having all the data, hardware and cash to train it.
Yeah but the people who made it like that probably understand whether to trust it to write code or not. The AI Tony wrote, he knows what it does best and he trusts it to write his code. Just because it's AI doesn't mean it's LLM. Like I trust the errors compilers give me even if I didn't write them because it's good. And I trust my scripts to do things that I wrote them for, specifically since I tested them. Same with the AI you yourself made, you'd test it, and you'd know the design principles.
an ai is not a script. You can know what a script does. neural networks don't work that way. You train them, and hope you picked the right dataset for it to hopefully learn what you want it to learn. You can't test it. You can know that it works sometimes but you also know that it will also not work sometimes and there'sjacksjit you can do about it. A couple of gigabytes of floating point numbers is not decipherable to anyone.
And who says AI means neural network? That's what we use, doesn't mean that's the only AI possible to write. There are a lot of different models, neural network is popular right now because it can learn from data without anyone having to teach it actual logic. An AI written by fictional character can be a deterministic kind with very similar logic to humans that you can inspect and write and give weights to things.
Even if they build the AI doing it from scratch, all by themselves?
yes. Because that would still mean they didn't code the app.
"killing is bad!" "but what if the murderer 3d printed his own gun?"
More like: "killing is bad" "but what if the 'murderer' designed, build and produced their own target?"
You can't kill a robot, so it isn't killing.
the "target" is to get useful software out. The ai is the tool. In this example, the ai is the gun. It is the tool used to achieve the goal.
Anyone can make an improvised hammer. Stick a rock or a piece of metal on a stick. But that doesn't make them carpenters, even though they made their own tools.