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
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think we’re barreling towards a place where remotely complicated software becomes a lost technology

I think complicated software has been an art more than a science, for the past 30 years we have been developing formal processes to make it more of a procedural pursuit but the art is still very much in there.

I think if AI authored software is going to reach any level of valuable complexity, it's going to get there with the best of our current formal processes plus some more that are being (rapidly) developed specifically for LLM based tools.

But eventually you will hit a limit. You’ll need to do something...

And how do we surpass those limits? Generally: research. And for the past 20+ years where do we do most of that research? On the internet. And where were the LLMs trained, and what are they relatively good at doing quickly? Internet research.

At the end of the day, coding is a skill. If no one is building the required experience to work with complex systems

So is semiconductor design, application of transistors to implement logic gates, etc. We still have people who can do that, not very many, but enough. Not many people work in assembly language anymore, either...

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 19 hours ago

So is semiconductor design, application of transistors to implement logic gates, etc. We still have people who can do that, not very many, but enough. Not many people work in assembly language anymore, either...

Yeah, that's a lost tech. We still use the same decades, even century old, frameworks

They're not perfect. But they are unchangeable. We no longer have the skills to adapt them to modern technology. Improvements are incremental, despite decades of effort you still can't reliably run a system on something like RISK.