Technology

77084 readers

2822 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
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

983

I Went All-In on AI. The MIT Study Is Right. (open.substack.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

239 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

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

The type of problem in my experience is the biggest source of different results

Ask for something that is consistent with very well trodden territory, and it has a good shot. However if you go off the beaten path, and it really can't credibly generate code, it generates anyway, making up function names, file paths, rest urls and attributes, and whatever else that would sound good and consistent with the prompt, but no connection to real stuff.

It's usually not that that it does the wrong thing because it "misunderstood", it is usually that it producea very appropriate looking code consistent with the request that does not have a link to reality, and there's no recognition of when it invented non existent thing.

If it's a fairly milquetoast web UI manipulating a SQL backend, it tends to chew through that more reasonably (though in various results that I've tried it screwed up a fundamental security principle, like once I saw it suggest a weird custom certificate validation and disable default validation while transmitting sensitive data before trying to meaningfully execute the custom valiidation.