stefano-marinelli

I've come across this a few times and each time I think I've shared this but I haven't. So here we are, enshittifaication, a play on enshittification (see also Androidification), Stefano Marinelli recounts a few instances of how AI breaks down any attempt at communication between people.

The enormous problem with my work these days is the extreme confidence that certain companies project, replacing humans - even senior ones - with AI, with no right of appeal. The result is monstrous confusion, enormous wasted time for everyone, and a widespread erosion of reliability, all papered over by the AI's unshakeable assertiveness - and by those who believe these systems are the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

I've had my fair share of interactions with people who insist on certain decisions with no basis other than "an AI told me so".

Read from link

The term vibe coding and the act of vibe coding have been popping up all around me. Stefano Marinelli writes about how vibe coding will rob us of our freedom and I'm inclined to agree.

Many developers are terrified of losing their jobs for this very reason: AIs sometimes program better than them. And, in my opinion, they are right to be afraid. But I'm more afraid of a world (and not just in IT) where code will depend exclusively on the companies that sell us AIs.

I don't think it's too hard to imagine a world where non-programmers vibe code their product or service and hire developers by the hour to squash bugs. The gig economy for developers?. That is if there are any developers around still capable of writing code. I would assume there would be a shift in skill from merely wiring code to bring code reviews, which is arguably harder to master.

Stefano Marinelli defines vibe coding as:

this methodology (if we can call it that) where developers, pressured by deadlines, are no longer trained on code structure, but on the "vibe" – that is, on giving the right prompts to AIs and testing only if the output seems to work.

I can see Simon Williston disagreeing with this definition.

Another thing that popped into mind is that those in favour of using LLMs to generate large quantities of code frequently justify the technology claiming how productive it makes them. However, every productivity boost only means the company needs one less full time developer. Going back to the original post, the author wrote a follow-up to address some of the criticism aptly named When We Become Cheerleaders for Our Own Demise.

Discovered via Andreas from 82MHz.

Read from link