Humans are obsolete dead meats
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
520 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
88252 readers
5674 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The sad reality is that most apps are regurgitated CRUD with new design language. The llms are really good are regurgitating this stuff, so the only interesting part left is the 10% that was already interesting before. I just take 2h lunches and spend time with my family while the llms puke out the CRUD, then thoughtfully work through the 10%
My company made my job soul-sucking to the point I was doing the bare minimum a long time ago. They didn’t even need AI for that. Just some really shitty managers.
Same!
Reminder here that the culprit is capitalism, not LLMs.
Voxium said he wouldn't mind the situation if workers were given more time to check the code.
"Everyone, literally everyone, from an L1 to an L7 engineer here is doing the same thing. Talk to Claude," he added. "There is no sense of victory. Nobody is resolving bugs. In reality, nobody is thinking anymore."
Some people might look at this and wonder what the problem is – who wouldn't want to be paid to do very little? But most people struggle when their work has no meaning. Voxium told Business Insider that if engineers lose the opportunity to understand the code and solve difficult problems, "there is nothing left ... Not even our soul. There will be no purpose."
He added that the real problem is corporate leaders' obsession with pushing out more features. He said management often judges success by sprint cycles, pull requests, and the sheer number of features shipped, even when those additions do little to improve the product for users.
Capitalism created LLMs.
People are clever; we invent things.
LLMs are just a tool. Tools can be used by people; the problem is when people are used by tools, which is what is happening in this case.
See Corey Doctorow's latest tour of YouTube promoting his idea of reverse centaurs (which, for the life of me, I can´t figure out why he didn´t call minotaurs).
Sure. You can talk about the LLM gestalt, if you'd like, that's worth examining, as with any other tool; especially stuff like progressive brain rot.
But listening to the complaints people have about LLMs, it's mostly that it's being improperly used to replace human labor. Improperly in the sense that it can't actually do the job it is replacing humans in, which is a separate discussion of what kind of world it will be when there are no jobs for humans to do.
LLMs are used responsibly by people doing their own work. For instance, Linus Torvalds used Claude to find errors in the Linux kernel (I think), that he then fixed himself.
The problem is that capitalism, especially oligoplic capitalism, will create worse products at lower prices (or higher profits), and it will do so on the shortest timeline, ignoring things like future lawsuits over security flaws and future lack of programming talent and erosion of consumer trust.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I like this take.
Capitalism was the jet fuel that got us here, but now we need to shed our boosters and switch engines to something made to run longer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Fucking snow flake anti ai nerds, like you weren't just pressing keys all day anyway, who cares if now it's just one key??
/s
I don’t hate Claude Code or whatever. I hate the company pushing you to constantly churn out shit so you need to turn to these tools to keep up pace or get fired.
Architecture decisions or code quality? Fuck it just ship.
You have concerns about an approach? You’re the enemy to your coworker’s promotion. Get out of the way.
It’s all just so depressing. It will all come crumbling down. It’s a matter of when not if. But god I hate this ride right now.
Time to lean into the slop extra hard. Use AI to create massive PRs, use AI to approve the PRs. Automate sending slack alerts when a feature ships. Be loud, really show some massive "Productivity".
A guy I don't really like at work does all sorts of AI induced PRs. I think he thinks it makes him look good. It probably does, to management.
I got reprimanded for asking if a guy's extremely weird code was something he wrote himself. He went crying to my boss about how I'm mean on PRs. Fuck you, William. I hope your house catches fire and you pass out while asking Claude for help.
Hey William, I'm having trouble understanding this code, it looks a little weird, can you walk me through it in detail, and explain how you came to writing it like this?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Our place measures PR counts so a ton of tiny ass PRs is actually the move.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
People are working 12 to 13 hours a day
yeah I'd write a diatribe about the best work in the world under those circumstances too
load more comments
(1 replies)
AI code assistants currently are like that senior dev who knows everything, has experience in everything, and always likes to help everyone. But sadly he does a lot of shrooms in his spare time and sees things that aren't there. He also has quite the opinionated ideas about what good code should look like.
That implies that you just can't let him do the quality assurance. He can write code. You can ask him stuff. And he excels at debugging.
But you can't let him plan the architecture. You can ask him about his ideas and select the ones that are actually good, though.
And you definitely can't let him review his own code. Someone else has to do that.
So if they literally just let the AI do everything, there is absolutely no way anyone has a chance to ever review the result because AI code is harder to review (for now), and AI loves to repeat itself (for now).
And sure, they can tell it to write tests. But AI is dogshit at writing tests. It tends to forget the important cases, test the wrong thing, and/or obsess about completely irrelevant implementation details.
I also tried the multi-round approach with a committee of agents trying to iteratively find and fix flaws. It only works well for finding bugs, not fixing them (for now).
But while AI can't replace me, it is really nice to have as a tool - just like I have syntax highlighting in the IDE, I have a code assistant that can autocomplete a few lines of code, find out why my code misbehaves, or tell me what some library method is supposed to do. Sure, I have to still verify the results. But often, finding the bug or information was the hard part.
Coding assistants are great. Just don't let them write too much code at once. You need someone who still actually understands the codebase. That sadly can't be an AI (yet).
I really love when I ask the AI to do something, and it gives me 40-50 lines to do it, and I tell it there's no way something like that should take that much code, and it's like oh, ya you're right, here's a 5 line version using something from from the standard sdk.
I've tried to put in its memory to not do things like that, but it keeps doing it.
I watched it remove a JSON library include from the code because it wasn't used yet, and then in the very next prompt where we needed our again, it attempted to write a basic parser from scratch...
Brilliant.
Ive had it do stuff like that completely ignoring that I already have a library in my app that should handle some sort of task. But removing it first is chefs kiss.
Even without external libraries, it routinely comes up with solutions that are at least 3-4x the complexity and LOC than how I would implement it.
It's because the average quality of code that they are trained on is like that. Most code that is written by humans is slop, and the models represent that.
Producing overly complicated solutions to uncomplicated problems
load more comments
(4 replies)
I guess the AI isn't iterating over its "ideas" and code yet. I come up with overcomplicated and overcomplex code too. But my natural neural network keeps reevaluating the code while I think about it, write it down, test it, and often even come back to it later after I moved on to another part of the codebase.
It looks to me like AI is using the infamous waterfall method to write code. It does the "thinking" phase and does bugfix iterations when compilation or tests fail. But never does it question the design it came up with after it wrote it down. It doesn't reevaluate whether the last round of fixes made tests work that test irrelevant implementation details. It doesn't question whether there really need to be four methods sharing 90% of their body for doing the basically the same thing only subtly different.
I hold the suspicion that AI will be as slow as humans when it becomes as reliable because what makes us reliable is the redundancy in our thinking processes. The constant reevaluation in subtly different states of mind helps to catch design flaws and silly mistakes.
Reevaluation of finalized code is probably not something you can just put into memory. You would need to modify the harness to automatically inject a new prompt triggering reevaluation of the design and implementation after each step. This would likely increase token use and execution time by an order of magnitude. And if you do it by spawning fresh agents, there would be a high chance of having the AI go in circles, switching between a few different versions of the same shitty design or implementation. So you need to keep the context, which grows each iteration. So context rot may become a real problem. The AI might deviate from the initial goal just like some human devs tend to do...
And natural neural networks learn on the job. They adapt to the codebase and industry they are working with/in. claude.md and memory text files help a lot. But they are still sometimes ignored. And I don't know why. Also, human rules are almost always somewhat fuzzy. Long lines are to be avoided - but unit tests and that one massive dict of dicts really are a lot more readable when ignoring that rule. There might be a lack of good training material on what makes code readable for humans.
That actually makes a lot of sense and goes with how ill code something larger as well.
Get a rough version working, sometimes horrible code. See how it functions. Reassess it and optimize it. Go bug hunting, which will often result in more optimizing, then finish all the error handling I probably skipped and only logged. More bug hunting, then review my code like a code review before submitting it for a code review.
load more comments
(4 replies)
AI code assistants currently are like that senior dev
More like a junior dev.
That's how i always describe them. Over-eager junior devs that are trying to impress you with how fast they can get stuff done. Have a lot of book learning but don't know when to apply certain things. Sometimes, i feel like it should really only be a tool for senior devs because it feels a lot like mentoring a team of noobs
The engineer added that employees are now pressured to ship products as fast as possible, leaving them with little time to review Claude's output or understand the code being created.
Companies have always pressured software teams to ship products as fast as possible.
What's new is the part where all of the worst coders can shit out code a lot faster and pretend like they're doing a good job. It used to take them a while to write garbage that they didn't understand or review themselves, but now they can do it so quickly that it makes the actual good coders look like they're taking a long time.
This is why you absolutely have to have documented coding and review standards. The idea that you'd ship any code that has never been reviewed by a human is horrifying.
The idea that you'd work 12 hour days is so stupid to start with. I've seen people consistently work that long and... surprise, they don't actually work that long. They work about the same as anybody else and goof off the rest of the time. I doubt you can even just press enter for that long. People just don't work that way.
This is exactly it. I’ve worked with 2 different teams in this new era. One has all strong engineers and good review and testing standards. The other has 20% bad engineers that should have been fired years ago and’s weaker testing culture. The result is the strong team is delivering higher quantity software faster than ever, and the other team is going fast with much worse results. The quality is very bad, and the good engineers still there are quitting.
The good engineers spend their whole days just trying to keep the ship afloat and minimizing the harm from the bad engineers. They hate it and are burning out fast.
load more comments
(2 replies)
12 hour shifts?
I've heard the same from developers at work "doing this using AI makes it boring, but at the same time I feel silly if I write everything from scratch".
I'm not a developer but I do make little tools for myself at work. I used an LLM to assist with adding some features recently, nothing I couldn't easily do myself. It did a fine job and made minimal changes, all totally readable and for the most part the same way I would have done it.
I have a new tool I want to make, and it's hard not to just turn to the LLM, since it'll save me many hours on a script that nobody else will ever see. It's really taken the fun out of it. I'm proud of what I made, even though nobody else will care, but doing this my usual way will feel like I'm using the wrong tool out of perversity.
I dunno. I hate everything.
I look at it this way: if you prompted an LLM to generate it, then you didn't "do" it, you basically installed an outside piece of software that just happened to be generated on-the-fly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
workers spend 12-hour days pressing enter
If only that could be automated somehow.
I feel like you are being sarcastic, but this actually is a solved problem :
An elegant solution. I wonder if it is more efficient than a 1TW data centre.
Seriously, though, we use AI in the worst way possible. I like writing code, I hate checking someone else's code. Why aren't AIs doing the checking and engineers doing the coding?
Forget "human in the loop" - let's shoot for "reviewed by AI". Deep down, we know the humans are barely paying attention when they check Claude's homework.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'd have more sympathy if he got off fucking twitter tbh
Sex joke about getting off from fucking twitter
If I'm forced into Claude Code or something similar, I will be looking for a new job. Ideally a different role in my company to keep my benefits and not have to completely start over, but if I have to jump ship, I will. Fortunately, our security and GRC teams have explicitly blocked Claude Code for the time being. I still have the tools built into Visual Studio, but I seldomly use them, and when I do it's basically as stack overflow, and that only when I can't find what I'm looking for through web searches first.
We had someone from our Networking team come over the other day and say that he could tell our summer interns were gone because our AI usage dropped by over $1000 / month.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Oh it's way worser than that. Its erasing our skill
view more: next ›