So I’m done talking about AI. Y’all can keep talking about it, if you want. I’m a grown adult and can set my own mutes and filters on social media.

I’ve given this idea its due, and with this post I am absolving myself of having to think about it any more.

I’ve never actually written about AI on my blog before, though I have some unpublished drafts if you know how to find them. So I’m going to leave this conversation with a list of my objections to coding with AI. If I’m wrong about it, let this be a record of my wrongness. If I’m right about it, let this be a record of my argument.

TL;DR: I chose to make using AI a manual action, because I felt the slow loss of competence over time when I relied on it, and I recommend everyone to be cautious with making AI a key part of their workflow.

"We're in the very early days looking at this problem from an ecosystem level," Larson told The Register. "It's difficult, and likely impossible, to quantify how many attempted installs are happening because of LLM hallucinations without more transparency from LLM providers. Users of LLM generated code, packages, and information should be double-checking LLM outputs against reality before putting any of that information into operation, otherwise there can be real-world consequences."

[...]

"Even worse, when you Google one of these slop-squatted package names, you’ll often get an AI-generated summary from Google itself confidently praising the package, saying it’s useful, stable, well-maintained. But it’s just parroting the package’s own README, no skepticism, no context. To a developer in a rush, it gives a false sense of legitimacy.