I'm not going to wait for some scientist to tell me whether AI is useful or not. I'm going to use it myself and form my own opinion, I'm going to look at other people using it and listen to their opinions, and I'm going to follow scientific consensus once it forms. Sure, my opinion may be wrong. But that's the price you pay for having an opinion.
I also have to point out that the author's maligning of the now famous Cloudflare experiment is totally misguided.
"There are no controls or alternate experiments" -- there are tons and tons of implementations of the OAuth spec done without AI.
"We also have to take their (Cloudflare’s) word for it that this is actually code of an equal quality to what they’d get by another method." -- we do not. It was developed publicly in Github for a reason.
No, this was not a highly controlled lab experiment. It does not settle the issue once and for all. But it is an excellent case study, and a strong piece of evidence that AI is actually useful, and discarding it based on bad vibes is just dumb. You could discard it for other reasons! Perhaps after a more thorough review, we will discover that the implementation was actually full of bugs. That would be a strong piece of evidence that AI is less useful than we thought. Or maybe you concede that AI was useful in this specific instance, but still think that for development where there isn't a clearly defined spec AI is much less useful. Or maybe AI was only useful because the engineer guiding it was highly skilled, and anything a highly skilled engineer works on is likely to be pretty good. But just throwing the whole thing out because it doesn't meet your personal definition of scientific rigor is not useful.
I do hear where the author is coming from on the psychological dangers of AI, but the author's preferred solution of "simply do not use it" is not what I'm going to do. It would be more useful if instead of fearmongering, the author gave concrete examples of the psychological dangers of AI. A controlled experiment would be best of course, but I'd take a Cloudflare style case study too. And if that evidence can not be provided, then perhaps the psychological danger of AI is overstated?
I also have to point out that the author's maligning of the now famous Cloudflare experiment is totally misguided.
"There are no controls or alternate experiments" -- there are tons and tons of implementations of the OAuth spec done without AI.
"We also have to take their (Cloudflare’s) word for it that this is actually code of an equal quality to what they’d get by another method." -- we do not. It was developed publicly in Github for a reason.
No, this was not a highly controlled lab experiment. It does not settle the issue once and for all. But it is an excellent case study, and a strong piece of evidence that AI is actually useful, and discarding it based on bad vibes is just dumb. You could discard it for other reasons! Perhaps after a more thorough review, we will discover that the implementation was actually full of bugs. That would be a strong piece of evidence that AI is less useful than we thought. Or maybe you concede that AI was useful in this specific instance, but still think that for development where there isn't a clearly defined spec AI is much less useful. Or maybe AI was only useful because the engineer guiding it was highly skilled, and anything a highly skilled engineer works on is likely to be pretty good. But just throwing the whole thing out because it doesn't meet your personal definition of scientific rigor is not useful.
I do hear where the author is coming from on the psychological dangers of AI, but the author's preferred solution of "simply do not use it" is not what I'm going to do. It would be more useful if instead of fearmongering, the author gave concrete examples of the psychological dangers of AI. A controlled experiment would be best of course, but I'd take a Cloudflare style case study too. And if that evidence can not be provided, then perhaps the psychological danger of AI is overstated?