Linux

It was in second place because having to constantly go into Flatseal for permissions can get annoying.

Of course it's not necessary. I'm a way-beyond-senior dev who laughed at LLMs up until a few months ago when trusted friends, whose competence is not in question, told me they got good usage out of them.

I decided to challenge my convictions and sat down and took the time to learn how to use LLM assistants (I tried everyting from full vibe coding to manual gatekeeping of suggestions).

Now I use them for my own personal projects, and I'm much more productive (for various reasons - but one is that the initial friction of oh yet another thing I have to learn just to do X is much lower. I have no boss telling me what to do, and I select my projects myself. If they didn't bring any benefits I wouldn't use them.

I still don’t understand why people are foaming at the mouth about LLMs. They’re fucking awful at writing software.

That's because you appear to actually have the skills required for your job.

I recently got assigned to a project where portions of the UI has been LLM vomited. It does not conform to web standards, and it doesn’t give a fuck about accessibility.

There’s a custom checkbox component whose label isn’t clickable. I’ve had to fix so many little things because someone couldn’t be bothered to do it right and chose to outsource their thinking to something that can’t think.

My view on LLM usage is essentially, if you don’t give a fuck about what you’re doing, why should anyone else? If you don’t care enough about your project to actually develop it yourself, why should Flathub platform it?

So this is some what problematic. Technology has benefits does not mean it has to be allowed. Question is what do we gain and at what cost. If the answer is we gain speed, then the followup is "does it really matter?".

Speed of coding is the common answer. Another one is non programmers are able to make programmes. Both of it does not add much of a real value is the point. Because when the machine churn out code at a very high rate, then the humans who should review it gets under pressure. We are not addressing the real bottleneck, instead we just pump out more material which just intensify the congestion at the bottleneck. Quality goes down, we get things like AWS going down, Microsoft wiping people's machines, etc. In other words it creates problem without much meaningful gain.

Regarding the non-programmers making programmes, it mostly just create a lot of noise. There is a lot of weekend projects, one shot attempts, or some half cooked outcomes. Only a handful of projects with meaningful impact in the world will be born out of it. We all know, even before AI, out of hundreds of thousands of GitHub repos only a small section is actually well maintained, and deliver something to the world.

I don't have to explain at what cost. It is just literally affecting the climate and accelarting the collapse of current ecosystem. Are we doing this so that a code can be written in 1 hour, instead of one day? If you get more free time because of this, well, at least we can say the load is reduced. But we all know we just get more work to do from our employer. So I don't really think this is a net positive.

Pointless exaggerations aren't inevitable either, but you adopted and shared one. Pointless and "witty" exaggerations won't change the outcome of the process though. Which is why robust and transparent AI policies are required.