• @NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    13
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I hate AI and wish it would disappear but you’re right. The automatic PR reviewing LLM at my job genuinely catches a lot of issues that would fly under the radar normally. Obviously a human review is still needed but those downvoting clearly do not work in tech because it’s basically just a fancy SonarQube* CircleCI (well, apparently they’re AI now but before they did that). If it’s wrong, resolve the issue with one click; if it’s right, then its beneficial?

    The blanket AI hate is stupid because it drowns out the valid criticisms like energy use, knowledge loss, unmaintainability, etc

    edit: I said CircleCI but was thinking of SonarQube

    • @doleo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 days ago

      those downvoting clearly do not work in tech

      Not all turkeys voted for christmas

      • @NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I don’t entirely get the point you’re making but if I’m understanding it correctly my response would be that I’m not pro AI. The issue is that the AI vs not AI conversation always lacks any nuances which means those on the fence just disregard anything being said as just two evangelical bases yelling at each other

        We can appreciate the positive aspects of things in tech even if the technology as a whole is a massive problem.

        Edit: my point being: can you tell me why PR reviews generated by an LLM are bad? If the discussion was actually diving into the details then I’d be interested but blanket statements are just stupid

        • @Tiresia@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          84 days ago

          Edit: my point being: can you tell me why PR reviews generated by an LLM are bad? If the discussion was actually diving into the details then I’d be interested but blanket statements are just stupid

          If the LLM is owned by an external corporation: Because it generates a workflow dependency that will be enshittified to screw you over. The current quality of service is backed by unfathomable amounts of investment capital, and they will want to make a profit (or political gains) out of it at some point. Also, if you are dealing with any sort of valuable information, because the plagiarism company will commit plagiarism to you.

          If you’re running a model locally, then it will still hallucinate, be racist, sexist, and biased in other ways (meaning it will be unnecessarily harsh to some and gullibly approving towards others). Though to be fair it might not be worse than you or your colleagues. Also, because model weights can’t be interpreted, you’re going on faith that the LLM has been trained with your best interest in mind. There is nothing stopping the LLM trainers from, for example, teaching it a pass phrase that will get it to sign off on anything. And then it’s up to your underfunded and undertrained human reviewers to catch whatever malware they’re trying to sneak into your code base.

          It seems quite possible that your risk profile and tolerance for discrimination are such that it makes sense for you to run a local LLM. But the cloud-based ones are definitely going to be bad for you in the long run. Unless you’re phoning it in at work and this will help you half-ass it even more, of course.

        • @doleo@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          04 days ago

          We can appreciate the positive aspects of things in tech even if the technology as a whole is a massive problem.

          See, I don’t agree with this, and that’s why I see it as “stupid” to have a discussion about the nuance of LLM use.

          “Damn, the mushroom cloud coming off of that bomb is hella dope tho”, “woah, look at the speed that projectile gets fired at! I didnt even see it hit me”, “actually, those drones can carry water to put out forest fires as well as explosive devices”. etc.