this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
1073 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

77084 readers
2585 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
L4s@hackingne.ws
1073
I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right. (open.substack.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
296 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just want to clarify, this is not my Substack, I'm just sharing this because I found it insightful.

The author describes himself as a "fractional CTO"(no clue what that means, don't ask me) and advisor. His clients asked him how they could leverage AI. He decided to experience it for himself. From the author(emphasis mine):

I forced myself to use Claude Code exclusively to build a product. Three months. Not a single line of code written by me. I wanted to experience what my clients were considering—100% AI adoption. I needed to know firsthand why that 95% failure rate exists.

I got the product launched. It worked. I was proud of what I’d created. Then came the moment that validated every concern in that MIT study: I needed to make a small change and realized I wasn’t confident I could do it. My own product, built under my direction, and I’d lost confidence in my ability to modify it.

Now when clients ask me about AI adoption, I can tell them exactly what 100% looks like: it looks like failure. Not immediate failure—that’s the trap. Initial metrics look great. You ship faster. You feel productive. Then three months later, you realize nobody actually understands what you’ve built.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe the solution is to keep sending the code through various AI requests, until it either gets polished up, or gains sentience, and destroys the world. 50-50 chance.

This stuff ALWAYS ends up destroying the world on TV.

Seriously, everybody is complaining about the quality of AI product, but the whole point is for this stuff to keep learning and improving. At this stage, we're expecting a kindergartener to product the work of a Harvard professor. Obviously, were going to be disappointed.

But give that kindergartener time to learn and get better, and they'll end up a Harvard professor, too. AI may just need time to grow up.

And frankly, that's my biggest worry. If it can eventually start producing results that are equal or better than most humans, then the Sociopathic Oligarchs won't need worker humans around, wasting money that could be in their bank accounts.

And we know what their solution to that problem will be.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This stuff ALWAYS ends up destroying the world on TV.

TV is also full of infinite free energy sources. In the real world warp drive may be possible, you just need to annihilate the mass of Jupiter with an equivalent mass of antimatter to get the energy necessary to create a warp bubble to move a small ship from the orbit of Pluto to a location a few light years away, but on TV they do it every week.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Sounds like we have a plan, let's get to work. The Cochran Warp Drive isn't going to invent itself.