this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
1075 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

77589 readers
4452 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I'm just sharing this because I found it insightful.

The author describes himself as a "fractional CTO"(no clue what that means, don't ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):

I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.

I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.

Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rimu@piefed.social 45 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

FYI this article is written with a LLM.

image

Don't believe a story just because it confirms your view!

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 40 points 4 days ago (8 children)

I've heard that these tools aren't 100% accurate, but your last point is valid.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 32 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Aren't these LLM detectors super inaccurate?

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

@LiveLM@lemmy.zip @rimu@piefed.social

This!

Also, the irony: those are AI tools used by anti-AI people who use AI to try and (roughly) determine if a content is AI, by reading the output of an AI. Even worse: as far as I know, they're paid tools (at least every tool I saw in this regard required subscription), so Anti-AI people pay for an AI in order to (supposedly) detect AI slop. Truly "AI-rony", pun intended.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 42 points 4 days ago (9 children)

@AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world @technology@lemmy.world

I used to deal with programming since I was 9 y.o., with my professional career in DevOps starting several years later, in 2013. I dealt with lots of other's code, legacy code, very shitty code (especially done by my "managers" who cosplayed as programmers), and tons of technical debts.

Even though I'm quite of a LLM power-user (because I'm a person devoid of other humans in my daily existence), I never relied on LLMs to "create" my code: rather, what I did a lot was tinkering with different LLMs to "analyze" my own code that I wrote myself, both to experiment with their limits (e.g.: I wrote a lot of cryptic, code-golf one-liners and fed it to the LLMs in order to test their ability to "connect the dots" on whatever was happening behind the cryptic syntax) and to try and use them as a pair of external eyes beyond mine (due to their ability to "connect the dots", and by that I mean their ability, as fancy Markov chains, to relate tokens to other tokens with similar semantic proximity).

I did test them (especially Claude/Sonnet) for their "ability" to output code, not intending to use the code because I'm better off writing my own thing, but you likely know the maxim, one can't criticize what they don't know. And I tried to know them so I could criticize them. To me, the code is.. pretty readable. Definitely awful code, but readable nonetheless.

So, when the person says...

The developers can’t debug code they didn’t write.

...even though they argue they have more than 25 years of experience, it feels to me like they don't.

One thing is saying "developers find it pretty annoying to debug code they didn't write", a statement that I'd totally agree! It's awful to try to debug other's (human or otherwise) code, because you need to try to put yourself on their shoes without knowing how their shoes are... But it's doable, especially by people who deal with programming logic since their childhood.

Saying "developers can't debug code they didn't write", to me, seems like a layperson who doesn't belong to the field of Computer Science, doesn't like programming, and/or only pursued a "software engineer" career purely because of money/capitalistic mindset. Either way, if a developer can't debug other's code, sorry to say, but they're not developers!

Don't take me wrong: I'm not intending to be prideful or pretending to be awesome, this is beyond my person, I'm nothing, I'm no one. I abandoned my career, because I hate the way the technology is growing more and more enshittified. Working as a programmer for capitalistic purposes ended up depleting the joy I used to have back when I coded in a daily basis. I'm not on the "job market" anymore, so what I'm saying is based on more than 10 years of former professional experience. And my experience says: a developer that can't put themselves into at least trying to understand the worst code out there can't call themselves a developer, full stop.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 42 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

“fractional CTO”(no clue what that means, don’t ask me)

For those who were also interested to find out: Consultant and advisor in a part time role, paid to make decisions that would usually fall under the scope of a CTO, but for smaller companies who can't afford a full-time experienced CTO

[–] zerofk@lemmy.zip 29 points 4 days ago (3 children)

That sounds awful. You get someone who doesn’t really know the company or product, they take a bunch of decisions that fundamentally affect how you work, and then they’re gone.

… actually, that sounds exactly like any other company.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Computers are too powerful and too cheap. Bring back COBOL, painfully expensive CPU time, and some sort of basic knowledge of what's actually going on.

Pain for everyone!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Just sell it to AI customers for AI cash.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›