I haven't tried AI DJ, so I can't comment on that, but I find it hard to empathize with the author. Not because the criticism lacks merits, but because there is no real attempt to explore the pro/cons of the tech. I see this pattern often with people who complain about AI. They pick a narrow case where it isn't good at and use it to dismiss the whole thing. AI isn't a human, it's going to have its limits.

Same thing I saw in AI-assisted coding. People complaining how AI- enabled some XYZ security risk, it's bad, it's crap. This could be true, but why ignore the fact that you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence? That should be good for at least a few things. Right?

▲ nottorp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Basically it's because what "AI" can do is extremely different from what "AI evangelists" claim it can do.

I haven't seen a single "AI evangelist" address any concerns and limitations, other by than "throw more AI at it" or "it will get better in 5 years, just in time for cold fusion".

> you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence

Like they created a full blown C compiler that "could compile linux" but in reality didn't pass its own tests?

If you constantly cry wolf, no one's going to believe you when the wolf actually comes.

▲ Closi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Basically it's because what "AI" can do is extremely different from what "AI evangelists" claim it can do.

You always have people at both sides of the aisle though - people who say it can do much more than it can, and people who say it can do much less.

It's the same with all technologies - robotics, crypto, drug discovery, the internet, digital cameras, quantum computing, 3D Television, self-driving cars - it was probably the same with the steam engine. All of these will have had people who said that the technology would be useless and die (e.g. Napoleon and the steam engine), and others that would have said it was totally transformative.

Pointing to people who hold extreme opinions 'for' a particular technology that are overly-bullish, and then dismissing the technology based on that, isn't a particularly good strategy in my opinion.

▲ ChadNauseam an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I haven't seen a single "AI evangelist" address any concerns and limitations

You see what you choose to focus on. I come across many people who are excited about the possibilities of AI-assisted coding, who are frustrated by its limitations, who share strategies for overcoming or avoiding those limitations, and s on. For a concrete and famous example, I would put Andrej Karpathy in this category. Where are you looking that you're not finding any of these people? linkedin?

	▲	SyneRyder 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The user you're replying to has made many similar posts like this. I previously tried engaging in good faith. I try not to fall into the XKCD 386 trap now, my time is better spent with Claude Code. Hope I can help save you some time too!

▲ n2d4 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's easy to address the limitations of AI by simply not using AI for those. No one forces you to use AI for tasks where its capabilities are limited; regardless, there are plenty of tasks where they aren't.

AI is very good at some things and very bad at others. Early on, many thought chess would be one of the last things mastered by computers, but they were wrong. It makes no sense to take the statement "AI is extremely bad at this task compared to humans" and conclude that AI must be useless or a waste of time.

In this case, the AI DJ is bad at picking out classical music. Okay, sure, whatever. But that doesn't automatically mean the AI DJ is bad at everything.

    > Like they created a full blown C compiler that "could compile linux" but in reality didn't pass its own tests?

You are strawmanning hard here. Who is "they"? You are putting all "AI evangelists" into the same blob here, and instead of answering the questions at-hand you ignore them and respond in an ad-hominem style by attacking a project that someone else made, completely unrelated to this entire thread. That is not good faith discourse!

▲ UqWBcuFx6NV4r an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

So you want to bring every conversation on the topic down to the level of the most idiotic fanboys making the most outlandish claims that are easiest to shoot down? If this was JUST directly in response to these “AI evangelists”, a group which I’ll ignore that you’re unfairly treating as a monolith, that’d be fine.

However, every post here that says the slightest thing positive about AI’s abilities is always met with “yeah well it can’t do my dishes for me so it’s total garbage!” BS.

You yourself are bringing up “making a compiler” out of nowhere. Nobody but you brought that up here. Yet you’re using it as the be-all end-all yard stick, simultaneously completely ignoring and completely proving the argument that you’re replying to.

It’s amazing how big a % of the developer community has started acting like intentionally unintelligent petulant children the moment they’re faced with an iota of the sort of job security risk they’ve been inflicting on others for decades. Some of you need to grow up.

	▲	scott01 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This appears to be a troll account, that only ever engages in heated discussions. Please, do not engage with it, folks :) On a related note, has anyone noticed actual bots commenting on HN? I sometimes feel discussions are a bit weird here.

▲ qsera 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>That should be good for at least a few things. Right?

The example you described, no.

It is not good because its quality and adherence to the spec (the single sentence) is and will always be probabilistic...

▲

drdaeman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> its quality and adherence to the spec (the single sentence) is and will always be probabilistic...

Isn’t the same true for a lot of individual programmers and even teams?

Especially so if they were provided just a short one-sentence vision instead of proper documentation.

▲

qsera an hour ago | parent [-]

Oh, I was not comparing it with out-sourced development and was instead comparing it with developing it oneself.

Sure, outsourcing is similar, but the difference is one uses a process that is inherently probabilistic and will show up in every result, while other just depends on the probability of you getting a good team.

▲

drdaeman an hour ago | parent [-]

I suspect the unspoken premise was that it was all in context of people who - just like those who hire contractors - don’t have the capacity to do it themselves.

In this context I suspect a SotA LLM could sometimes beat some cost-comparable UpWork professionals in both quality and spec adherence. In other words, if you need an app and can’t do it yourself and have a tight budget, LLMs are quickly becoming a viable option for more and more complex apps (still only simple ones before it produces junk, but progress is pretty appalling)

	▲	qsera a minute ago \| parent [-]
		>beat some cost-comparable UpWork professionals in both quality and spec adherence... I am not sure I want to keep paying for something that needs some amount of luck on my side, to be useful. Writing elaborate plans for LLMs also feels a bit pointless when there is no hard and fast rule about how much of it will be followed .. Apparently some people appear to be doing it, but I am afraid it is not something that will have a universal appeal..

▲ worksonmine 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This could be true, but why ignore the fact that you create a full blown native Mac app, with a single sentence?

I would guess it's for the same reasons that you're ignoring all the fixes necessary to get to an actual "full blown native Mac app". It's rarely a single sentence unless your app does something trivial like printing Hello World.