this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
94 points (86.2% liked)

Technology

84857 readers
3862 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
94
An AI hate wave is here (archive.is)
submitted 4 days ago by sanitation@lemmy.radio to c/technology@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This is just a statement of faith in your ability to judge these things accurately. Nowhere in here do I see any evidence that you've even considered that the reason you've changed your attitude towards the tech is that it's just gotten so good at fooling people that it's finally got you.

You don't gain much from trying to convince me, but you could gain a lot from being more sceptical. People invented science to address the fact that our intuitive understanding doesn't always reflect reality.

Science and the collection of objective data stops us from doing this:

A three-panel illustration of a child with two water glasses on a table in front of them. In the first panel, the glasses are identical and full. In the second, someone is pouring one glass's contents into a tall thin glass. In the third, the tall glass of water has replaced the glass that was poured into it, and the child is pointing to the tall glass to indicate they believe it contains more water.

There are a bunch of things that our brains just don't understand intuitively, so we need to check our intuition against measurement. There's no shame in that, but when it's pointed out, then you have a chance to check yourself.

But you don't seem to understand that. When you say:

Anyway, you'll see all this eventually, when some data gets published.

you are demonstrating that you are the perfect mark for this stuff, because you are not reflecting on your own thought process to see where it might be failing you.

[–] percent@infosec.pub 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

This is just a statement of faith in your ability to judge these things accurately. Nowhere in here do I see any evidence that you’ve even considered that the reason you’ve changed your attitude towards the tech is that it’s just gotten so good at fooling people that it’s finally got you.

Yet in all of your replies, you seem to have assumed early on that I've been fooled, based on outdated data. Do you just assume that newer data just doesn't exist anywhere, and I'm lying about it? (To be clear: I wouldn't blame you. There's an old proverb: "Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see," or something like that.)

you could gain a lot from being more sceptical

Another assumption that I wasn't skeptical.

Anyway, the rest of your reply continues with the assumption that there was no data or objectivity on my part, so I won't keep beating a dead horse. Just wait for newer data. It might be old by the time you see it, but still useful.

Edit: I suppose the number of recent layoffs might be useful (or at least interesting) data. Suddenly many different, unrelated companies had too many engineers – quite a contrast to the engineer shortage just a few years ago. Correlation ≠ causation and all, but interesting nonetheless.

Edit 2: I just noticed this paragraph in that link you shared:

And even for complex coding projects like the ones studied, the researchers are also optimistic that further refinement of AI tools could lead to future efficiency gains for programmers. Systems that have better reliability, lower latency, or more relevant outputs (via techniques such as prompt scaffolding or fine-tuning) “could speed up developers in our setting,” the researchers write. Already, they say there is “preliminary evidence” that the recent release of Claude 3.7 “can often correctly implement the core functionality of issues on several repositories that are included in our study.”

Claude 3.7 was released in February 2025. Also, I highly doubt 3.7 was good enough to make engineers more productive, overall (though I don't have data on those old models). Relative to the speed of evolution of LLMs, harnesses, and people's skills in using them, the data behind this article is ancient.

Edit 3:

In that article you shared, they link to the study in the second paragraph. Follow that link, and you'll see this at the top:

Update: In February 2026, we published new data on the productivity impact of late-2025 AI tools.

There were selection effects in the follow-up study, but seemed worth mentioning anyway.