Reasons for Disliking AI Coding
Problem
The discussion expresses skepticism about AI coding's ability to handle critical business logic, concerns over cognitive decline from over‑reliance on AI, fatigue from frequent anti‑AI articles, and worries about job displacement and ethical impacts.
Pain points
- AI coding cannot reliably handle core business logic
- Over‑reliance on AI may cause cognitive decline
- Frequent anti‑AI articles cause user fatigue
- Concerns about AI's negative impact on employment and ethics
Questions to verify
- Do you believe AI coding can reliably handle core business logic?
- Are you concerned that over‑reliance on AI may cause cognitive decline?
- What is your view on the negative impact of AI on employment and its ethical implications?
Evidence
quote
I don't like AI coding, but I can't say it's not useful. Most of the arguments in this article can be disarmed by taking the abstraction "one step up". LLM generated modules and software, microservices, whatever your level of abstraction... now need to be composited together. You go and deal with higher order problems, factories, generation, etc.Is it a way to develop critical bits of code, depths of your business logic? Absolutely not. Can it solve a lot of boilerplate and support logic? Absolutely yes.Seeing "AI Companies as Bad Actors"... can't fully disagree there. There's far too many far too dodgy things about these businesses, and I trust them as far as I can audit them (not very far). And the missing argument's the cognitive decline of using these things to think for us. I try to k
quote
Code as ArtCode is code.Code can be art, code can also be simply a tool to reach a goal.If you want to create art, do it with your own two hands and your brain.If you want to just Do The Thing, codegen it. No one cares. In before "Except your users having to use your vibeslop" FYI your Hand-Crafted Artisanal Code will still have bugs, so it's a moot point.Heck, the very first thing the author does is links to another one of his own blog post where the above points are explicitly stated and explained, then restates at the end of the paragraph that there are no valid arguments for this one. So why keep beating this dead horse? Especially as the opener of the article.This kind of mindset baffles me.
quote
My say about this1. I think most of us know the same thing is occurred when first compile came into the market (Most of them hated it saying 'High Quality ASM code would be only generated by humans' . Moving forward asm hasn't dead but we are only using it only at critically. I think we will do same with LLMs we use what useful and Move forward.2. Life's isn't just always staying in front of a box and writing some code. If AI does the job of creating useful code with quality i would be more than happy since i could get start to work on more abstract things like Arts and Humanity. which for our growth is essential as you can see the current society is currently disdain. Finally to conclude don't try to interrupt the flow just accept it and move forward.Life is SHORT
quote
I think the employment thief point is always misstated.We invented compilers, word processors, templated document generation, code generators, DSLs and things like that which were all labour reduction technologies for describing systems and information. These were net positives for society but wiped out full administrative and technical professions.The issue is the impact that technology has on society. It should used to free up more time for enriching humanity with art, music, sciences, mathematics etc. But what really happens is they are used entirely for concentrating wealth by taking revenue and reducing employment, leaving functional people unemployed, destitute and in debt to the people who have the wealth concentration.At this point it's morally objectionable on all grounds.A second
Disclaimer: this card is distilled by AI from community discussions as “pain point evidence”. It is a starting point for need analysis and validation, not a “validated market need”. AI has analytical limits; please open the original discussion above to manually verify before key decisions.