I know folks tend to frown on security compliances, but if you honestly implement and maintain most of the controls in there, not just to get a certificate -- it really make a lot of sense and improves security/clarity/risks.

But to just copy, paste and move on… terrible.

People with this kind of attitude existed long before AI and will continue to exist.

The luddites didn't destroy automatic looms because they hated technology; they did it because losing their jobs and seeing their whole occupation disappear ruined their lives and lives of their families.

The problem to fix isn't automation, but preventing it from destroying people's lives at scale.

It’s really intriguing how an increasingly popular view of what’s “ethical” is anything that doesn’t stand in the way of the ‘proletariat’ getting their bag, and anything that protects content creators’ intellectual property rights, with no real interest in the greater good.

Such a dramatic shift from the music piracy generation a mere decade or two ago.

It’s especially intriguing as a non-American.

Again, as you say, many sensible arguments against AI, but for some people it really takes a backseat to “they took our jerbs!”

One question perhaps is, even if AI can do everything I can do (i.e., has the skills for it), will it do everything I do? I'm sure there are many people in the world with the superset of my skills, yet I bet there are some things only I'm doing, and I don't think a really smart AI will change that.

The Industrial Revolution caused a great deal of damage. It was a net positive in the long term because new jobs were created to replace those that were lost, but it took decades and enormous violence. Now, the promise of AI is that it will be more efficient than any human being. If this becomes a reality, there will be, by definition, no new jobs created for the people replaced by AI.

It's because generative AI has become part of the "culture wars" and is therefore black and white to lots of people.

Personally I'd rather a future where everyone used local models.

> Is a small indie dev "dodgy" if they use AI to unblock a tricky C# problem so they can actually finish their game?

No amount of framing (unless written into law) would stop small indie devs from doing this. AI is just too efficient, making too much sense economically. People who are willing to starve for their ideology is always the minority.

Even artisans who build hand-made wooden furniture use power tools today. The tools that make economical sense will prevail one way or another.

What about learning the tools you use everyday by yourself?

So if the tricky C# problem isn't already in their data set, the output of the LLM is, at best, random crap. Even the worst human effort would exceed the output of the LLM, and that is the average case for any "tricky" problem. LLMs are fundamentally only useful on the most common types of problems that are can better be addressed by using frameworks, plugins, or APIs.

(And on that note: every programmer I've met who says that LLM coding agents 10x'd their output is the type of programmer that would have been PIP'd or fired 10 years ago for incompetence. We used to call them "code monkeys" for obvious reasons. Junior programmers think that LLM coding agents are awesome because they don't have the experience or skill to understand just how bad the output of LLM coding agents is, and the few that survive in the industry long enough to become senior programmers will laugh at their younger selves at how much of an unmaintainable mess they made vibe coding.)

While not as bad as firing 500 people, using ai to generate slop (and it is inherently slop due to being generated quickly by ai) is still bad.

If you take some percent longer to finish a some code, because you want that code to maintain some level of "purity", you'll finish slower than others. If his is a creative context, you'll spend more time on boilerplate than interesting stuffs. If this is a profit driven context, you'll make less money, less money for staff. Etc.

> If you’re not willing to risk being “left behind”...

I think this is orthogonal. Some tools increase productivity. Using a tool doesn't blind a component person...they just have an another tool under their belt to use if they personally find it valuable.

As a result, I think we'll eventually see a mean shift from rewarding those that are "technically competent" more towards those that are "practically creative" (I assume the high end technical competence will always be safe).

Lots of folks are mad about how the power of these tools comes from training things they put out in the open but didn't intend to be used to enrich or exclude others like this technology is enabling.

Interesting times ahead... it's so powerful people who ignore it are going to get left behind to some degree. (I say this as someone who actively avoids kubernetes and it does give off the vibe I've been left behind compared to my peers who do resume driven development.)

But that's not what companies expect from you, even if you owns AI. They expect you to output more, and when you do, someone else is probably out of work.