Post by @SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today

2026-09-01 11:29 UTC

It can’t reason. It doesn’t think. It makes shit up as it was trained to do. It can sort of detect patterns and make a guess about what response would get it the highest score, but it’s so error-prone that a human has to verify the output anyway. It’s difficult to tell whether the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. There are many different types of LLMs and use cases. As a person who values life and our environment, I’d rather not participate in the sloppification of our world. As a Linux user, I am wary of vibe coded flaws slipping under the radar and screwing up my system.

Replies (1)

@sunbeam60@feddit.uk 2026-09-02 05:53

Again, we are stuck in a semantics debate. What I call reasoning you don’t, it seems. But all I know, as someone that has worked in software engineering for 25+ years, is that the output of whatever it does, and whatever you call it, is incredibly useful. Saying “it just generates text” is a reflexive reaction that attempts to flatten the nuance. All Columbus did was sail west. All America did was throw some fuel into a tube and put Neil Armstrong on the top. All Picasso did was to throw some paint onto a cloth. All this PhD student did was generate text. Surely we’ve got to have some more nuance in there. If there’s a difference between 10000 monkeys hacking on a typewriter and a human writing their doctoral thesis, the quality of their act isn’t in whether text was generated but WHAT text was generated.

Open ##4658268