There would a lot of problems with the feasibility and enforceability of such a project, but putting that aside…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 3 months ago (10 children)

"I put millions of lines of code in a blender and kept re-rolling the output until I got something that kind of does what I want it to" will always be less efficient and more error-prone than a competent dev or team building with specific intent.

People who can't tell the difference approve bloated code with myriad vulnerabilities. Often, AI output doesn't actually do what it pretends to do.

If you’ve worked in any IT project, you will remember the most common issues: unclear requirements, scope creep, silos or misaligned incentives.

For AI projects, you can add to the list: “We’re not even sure this thing works the same way every time” and you’ve got a perfect storm for failure.

https://towardsdatascience.com/why-ai-projects-fail/

An annoying trend I've noticed in articles like this is that they still insist the AI is not to blame. Phrases like "devs love the technology," fuck no I don't. Or "95% of AI projects fail, but yours will totally succeed if you do it right". It feels exactly like how the lottery exploits people's hopes.

The steps required to make AI function are too costly to make AI worthwhile in almost every case. It was a stupid scam that too many companies fell for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Breaking News: High failure rates reported in early stage Oldowan startups make millennials reconsider tool use.

    This just seems like anti-computer evangelism from the 1950's and 1960's, and anti internet stuff in the 90's, being repurposed.

    I'm working with anti-Manichean attacks repurposing old anti-Marcionite attacks at the moment, same stuff.

    Bronze tooling is more than fine to get stuff done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    "AI" is more of a scam than a tool.

    We do not yet have artificial intelligence. At all. They only call it that to scam idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    It's been an academic discipline since the 1950's and a work in progress since at least Ada Lovelace.

    Calling AI a scam for idiots is fair enough: but please include writing, machines and computers there too.

    World class moron Linus Torvadls on the matter 14 July 2026:


    "AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one.

    It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today."***

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

    We have writing. We have machines. We have computers.

    We do not have AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    We don't have AI?

    What year are you posting from?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    We have LLMs. We do not have artificial intelligence. They call it that, but it's all marketing. It's not remotely humanlike.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This sounds more like you have some kinda religious objection to a perfectly normal term in use for 100yrs or so.

    It's not marketing, it's the english language https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/artificial-intelligence

    With all due respect I'm not really sure your feelings on what constitutes humanlike matters much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments