Why do people keep espousing such bullshit. Anthropic has terrible subscriber numbers, they are absolutely no where near profitability, a 100k people buying a product that struggles to sell itself is NOT the win you think it is.

If any of these tools did 10% of what their proponents claim they would become trillion dollar companies overnight and not you know... struggle so hard selling the amazing elixirs and perpetual labor machines.

Yes, you either marry into extreme wealth or hope that luck doesn't strike you into generational poverty. Anyone saying anything different is lying too you.

Supporting companies that profit off of misery, reduce human meaningfulness, those that innovate the surveillance state; why is it so hard to support policies like giving US school children free breakfast + lunch, medicare for all, public housing, universal childcare, federally mandated paid time off, universal higher education + vocational training, and a public jobs program (all things that have 70-90% voter approval across party lines; the new deal coalition literally had control of both houses of Congress for nearly 60 years unabated)? Programs that would literally unleash hundreds of trillions in monetary + societal benefits, why should the US population care about the wealth of the few compared to what we can do to provide meaningful lives collectively?

The idea that less than 100 people in the country have some sort of mandated right from the devil to dictate the direction of technology in our country should fill every single decent human being with disgust.

We must correct this. The fact that several hyper scale data centers could provide US school children free lunches + breakfast for a year should be the first immediate sign that something is deeply wrong with our country.

Is it virtual signaling when Americans are getting sent to concentration camps and executed by the federal government?

It's research from a company that gains from selling said tools they researched. Why does it have to be repeated that this is a massive conflict of interests and until this "research" has been verified multiple times by parties with zero conflict of interests it's best to be highly skeptical of anything it claims?

This is up there with believing tobacco companies health "research" from the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.

I mean, they're literally pointing out the negative effects of AI-assisted coding?

> We found that using AI assistance led to a statistically significant decrease in mastery. On a quiz that covered concepts they’d used just a few minutes before, participants in the AI group scored 17% lower than those who coded by hand, or the equivalent of nearly two letter grades. Using AI sped up the task slightly, but this didn’t reach the threshold of statistical significance.

This also echoes other research from a few years ago that had similar findings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46822158

Dude you falling for so obvious corpo-psyops is so sad. Tobacco companies literally published research that said cigarettes were dangerous too, that didn't stop them from lying to Congress and saying cigarettes weren't totally safe.

Some of you are the reason why there needs to be a new luddite movement (fun fact, the luddites were completely correct in their movements; they fought against oppressive factory owners that treated their fellow humans terrible, smashing the very same machines they used themselves. Entrepreneurs were literally ushering in a new hell on Earth where their factors were killing so many orphans (because many people refused to work in such places originally, until forced by dying in the streets or dying from their labor in such places) they had to ship the bodies of children across towns to not draw suspicion). Until the entrepreneurs started killing them and convincing the king reagent to kill them with the state, they had massive support. Support so high that when suspected luddites were escaping from the "police" you could hear entire towns cheering them on helping them escape).

People rightfully hate this stuff and you refuse to see, the evidence says it's terrible but hey let's still sell it anyway what's the worse that can happen?

  > this is a massive conflict of interests

I think everyone is aware of this.

But people like that they aren't shying away from negative results and that builds some trust. Though let's not ignore that they're still suggesting AI + manual coding.

But honestly, this sample size is so small that we need larger studies. The results around what is effective and ineffective AI usage is a complete wash with n<8.

Also anyone else feel the paper is a bit sloppy?

I mean there's a bunch of minor things but Figure 17 (first fig in the appendix) is just kinda wild. I mean there's trivial ways to solve the glaring error. The more carefully you look at even just the figures in the paper the more you say "who the fuck wrote this?" I mean like how the fuck do you even generate Figure 12? The numbers align with the grids but boxes are shifted. And Figure 16 has experience levels shuffled for some reason. And then there are a hell of a lot more confusing stuff you'll see if you do more than a glance...

I'm sorry but there is no shame in our industry, where are people protesting at conferences calling out devs working on instruments of oppression? Why isn't anyone harassing the devs that take it as a badge of honor to work at companies that profit from human misery?

I don't see it anywhere.

I do it all the time. It gets censored, hidden, downmodded on almost every site.

I sincerely mean this when I say thank you. Tech workers have pilfered the commons and ruined too many innocent lives to sit so high on their pedestal.

Yeah but what about the poor VC startups that want to rat fuck the commons? Why won't anyone think of them?

I don't think that's fine at all, it's quite a shitty thing to do hoenstly and I'm not surprised it's a VC backed company doing it.

How would you do it then?

I'd probably wouldn't ride the coattails of another open source project that provides hundreds of billions in value for free annually for anyone on this Earth in order to make a quick buck. IDK I have morals and it seems if you want VC funding you must lack them.

It's no different than the hucksters that take public domain books and slut them up in order to make some coin peddling smut.

Can't wait to see this being abused to show that "the prisoners were treated humanely" or that "there are no protests in the capital." At what point to we hold engineers responsible for creating these machines? How many must suffer because no one was willing to say no?

It becomes insulting when they think we're this foolish.