I get that there's little sense in arguing with the MBA hivemind, but... c'mon.

I manage two teams of highly motivated, largely pro-AI engineers. Both teams have independently concluded that they needed to ramp down GenAI usage because of code quality / maintainability concerns. Both teams have suffered from protracted outages caused by LLM jank not being sufficiently fenced off and guarded against. Both teams have expressed concern that the code generated by LLMs is far too verbose, full of slop, and rapidly becomes an unmaintainable mess.

These are teams that are building non-trivial LLM solutions (deep agentic data synthesis and multi-modal data tagging). They are using the technology creatively and pro-actively, not just vibe-coding slop and throwing their hands up when it fails. Both teams will continue using GenAI coding agents, don't get me wrong - but the gains are incremental, not transformative, and need careful fencing to make sustainable.

Nothing in these articles resonates as real. People who work in reality don't agree. I don't understand why this shit keeps getting attention (or rather I do, but the reasons aren't good).

Kids need to understand how to adjust and grow from failure more than they need to always be on the happy-path of straight A's and easy money.

How we respond to failure is how we teach response to failure. Hand-wringing, pearl-clutching and finger-pointing aren't valuable life skills.

Personally it's easy for me to be contemptuous - I opted into an accelerated math program that banned calculators when I was in Junior High. It helped me cultivate an very crisp intuitive/conceptual understanding of basic mathematical concepts that's carried through to today. I think we should do more of that kind of education, but it's expensive and requires amazing educators and a tolerance for student struggle.

Get the machines out, absolutely. But respond to failure compassionately, as part of a natural learning process.

The bottom is going to fall out of the market and it's going to take years to recover, I don't see any reason to suffer through that (and neither do my retirement-age relatives).

I'm after steady gains in an approximately efficient market, not a wildly unsustainable speculative boondoggle, thanks.

If people are just naked copy-pasting that field... which, ugh, of course they are... they are doing themselves and others a disservice.

I self-taught a bunch of remedial math when I went back to University after many years out. Khan Academy exists. Math tutors exist. They don't just exist, they're amazing.

If I can self-teach basic sequences and series or polynomial factorization or whatever at the age of 30 while juggling a full time job and a full computer science syllabus, an unemployed Berkeley freshman shouldn't struggle with it unless they have a legitimate disability or something.

Almost never in my life - maybe not even once? - has being directed to an automated service made my life better. It almost always ends up with me on the line with a human, more irritated and poorer for time and patience than I began.

I do not trust commercial GenAI and have had almost uniformly negative and frustrating experiences with it.

The only exception to this has been working with Jira. Jira's user experience is SO bad, and the features they support SO impoverished, I regularly use GenAI to synthesize Jira information into reports. Which I then have to manually verify anyway if the underlying report has consequences for anyone (if it might inform a negative perform assessment, for example), but it does save me that work.

It does not help that I understand the underlying algorithms and have been in or around this space for 20 years now. I've been mildly impressed but fundamentally disappointed by ML/AI since... forever. But now here we are, being directed to a useless support bot whose only real function is to have read and not understood the documentation I already read and understood, and then babble it back to me in the politely useless tones of a chronically underperforming employee who has been skirting termination for years.

It makes people vulnerable to laziness and stupidity lazier and stupider, and it does not appreciably speed me up unless what I need is a very expensive search engine / document summarizer / note taker.

Which is sometimes what I need, and it's good at that.

Everything else just feels like having someone rub their dirty socks on the back of my head. It feels intrusive and gross and subtracts value from my lived experience.

This is kinda obvious to most people, who are already experiencing an enormous amount of sludge in their daily life.

Tech-bro optimism in the face of GenAI is so painfully decoupled from lived reality it's frightening. Tech has not made the world a better place for most people over the last fifteen years, and it is poised to make things much, much worse.

Writing "80% of the code" is not saving "80% of the time". Code is usually trivial and writes itself when other problems are solved.

The specific example given was divergent models of colliding magnetic field lines.

How are the models religious?

How are the models dogmatic?

The example under discussion suggests neither in the literal sense.