100%. Generative AI is and will always be trained on more or less all open source code that is out there, and by definition, from the training data, it will create a mix of this, which will statistically be mediocre.
I feel like no one has read the article, instead anyone jumps on the defense and says "but my AI code is good!!!!". It's not even about the quality, and no one said that AI just produces garbage, especially with newer models.
> My take on AI for programming and "vibe coding" is that it will do to software engineering what fast fashion did to the clothing industry: flood the market with cheap, low-quality products and excessive waste.
"Product" is referring to the fast fashion analogy. The author is clearly saying that AI for programming and "vibe coding" will lead to bad code. Otherwise the analogy doesn't make sense. Why would AI programming lead to bad products but not also bad code?
I don't claim the AI code is good or bad. It generated me a tool I needed in a short time in a domain where I don't have enough knowledge. I have other high value work to do. I got the tool I wanted and moved on. I didn't even bother code reviewing it. It's like you ask an intern to knock you up a tool to do a job and instead of two days waiting you get it in a few hours.
This doesn't make any sense, a lot of the statements are especially true now, and would've been wrong in 2023. Your comment sounds like a weak defense instead, like saying "ahh you just don't get hip hop, you're too old" to your grandma.
Theyre not scanning the chats of the ones complaining, nor any multicultural people? It's about child abuse and it has been a thing for like always.
Also, weakening or prohibiting encryption has been discussed before this multicultural thing that you describe happened, and it will continue to. Like, literally since the start of the Internet the governments are fighting encryption hard.
Selling drugs on the Internet is also illegal. Selling them in real life too. How many people are doing it still? Doesn't seem very effective, this solution.
> Realistically if countries want to read encrypted messages, they can already do so.
How? Are you implying adynchronous and synchronous encryption is broken? Because last time I checked since Snowden our encryption is basically the one single thing in the whole concept of the internet that has been done very right, with forward secrecy and long term security in mind. AFAIK there are no signs that someone or something has been able to break it.
Also, the solutions you present do imply that someone already has the private key to decrypt. Sure, they'll say they'll just decrypt if your a bad person, but the definition of a bad person changes from government to government (see USA), and from CEO to CEO. Encryption should and mostly is built on zero trust and it only works with zero trust. Scanning, and risking the privacy of billions and billions of messages by having the key to read them because there have been some bad actors is fighting a fly with a bazooka. Which sounds funny overkill, but, fun fact, it also just doesn't work. It destroys a lot, and gains nothing.
I don't have a better solution for the problem. But this solution is definitely the wrong one.
> How? Are you implying adynchronous and synchronous encryption is broken?
Not at all.
You make encryption a crime. You ban certain apps. It won't stop people using encryption but that doesn't matter. Because just the act of using it makes you a dissident that can be dealt with.
That is currently the process in Iran and Egypt for example.
Even if they can't read the message and it's not illegal you can still be guilty by association. The act of sending a message can be tracked.
There has been countless situations of that even outside the realm of instant messaging.
The problem is that people still believe that if they don't pay money, a service is free. But so many do not question why it is free. Hint: Not because Google just wants you to succeed and have a good life. And then, without any second thought, they literally upload their whole private digital life.
What. The article reads just as an ad for clouds. It tips into the benefits, ownership problems, setup. Then it says "but how do I share photos???" and this apparently is enough to counter all benefits.
Even if I had to (and this is what I actually do actively) push the photos I want to share to Google Photos, ALL the benefits remain. I see it, it's a slight inconvenience of having to do like 2 more taps and wait for the upload, but that's it. You get so much for this small inconvenience. You own your data, your infrastructure, you're not locked in, and your data is private. But having to share the photos via another app is the dealbreaker?
I mean, going by that argument a username + password is also just obfuscation.
Generating a unique 64 byte code is even more secure than this, IF it's handled correctly.
Which is fine, as long as people are aware of it.