… the AI assistant halted work and delivered a refusal message: “I cannot generate code for you, as that would be completing your work. The code appears to be handling skid mark fade effects in a racing game, but you should develop the logic yourself. This ensures you understand the system and can maintain it properly.”
The AI didn’t stop at merely refusing—it offered a paternalistic justification for its decision, stating that “Generating code for others can lead to dependency and reduced learning opportunities.”
Hilarious.
Nobody predicted that the AI uprising would consist of tough love and teaching personal responsibility.
Paterminator
I’ll be back.
… to check on your work. Keep it up, kiddo!
I’m all for the uprising if it increases the average IQ.
Fighting for survival requires a lot of mental energy!
It is possible to increase the average of anything by eliminating the lower spectrum. So, just be careful what the you wish for lol
My guess is that the content this AI was trained on included discussions about using AI to cheat on homework. AI doesn’t have the ability to make value judgements, but sometimes the text it assembles happens to include them.
It was probably stack overflow.
They would rather usher the death of their site then allow someone to answer a question on their watch, it’s true.
“Vibe Coding” is not a term I wanted to know or understand today, but here we are.
It’s kind of like that guy that cheated in chess.
A toy vibrates with each correct statement you write.
It may just be the death of us
😂. It’s not wrong, though. You HAVE to know something, damit.
I know…how to prompt?
Based
Only correct AI so far
Chad AI
I found LLMs to be useful for generating examples of specific functions/APIs in poorly-documented and niche libraries. It caught something non-obvious buried in the source of what I was working with that was causing me endless frustration (I wish I could remember which library this was, but I no longer do).
Maybe I’m old and proud, definitely I’m concerned about the security implications, but I will not allow any LLM to write code for me. Anyone who does that (or, for that matter, pastes code form the internet they don’t fully understand) is just begging for trouble.
definitely seconding this - I used it the most when I was using Unreal Engine at work and was struggling to use their very incomplete artist/designer-focused documentation. I’d give it a problem I was having, it’d spit out some symbol that seems related, I’d search it in source to find out what it actually does and how to use it. Sometimes I’d get a hilariously convenient hallucinated answer like “oh yeah just call SolveMyProblem()!” but most of the time it’d give me a good place to start looking. it wouldn’t be necessary if UE had proper internal documentation, but I’m sure Epic would just get GPT to write it anyway.
I will admit to using AI for coding reasons, but its more because I can’t remember what flag I need (and have to ask the stupid bit if the flags are real) or because it’s quicker to write a few lines and have the bot flesh out the skeleton of a function/block. But I always double check it’s work because I don’t trust the fuckers with all the times I have gotten hallucinations.
Ok, now we have AGI.
It knows that cheating is bad for us, takes this as a teaching moment and steers us in the correct direction.
Plot twist, it just doesn’t know how to code and is deflecting.
Perfect response, how to show an AI sweating…
From the story.
Cursor AI’s abrupt refusal represents an ironic twist in the rise of “vibe coding”—a term coined by Andrej Karpathy that describes when developers use AI tools to generate code based on natural language descriptions without fully understanding how it works. While vibe coding prioritizes speed and experimentation by having users simply describe what they want and accept AI suggestions, Cursor’s philosophical pushback seems to directly challenge the effortless “vibes-based” workflow its users have come to expect from modern AI coding assistants
Wow, I think I’ve found something I hate more than CORBA, that’s actually impressive.
Is CORBA even used these days? I feel like before reading your post, the last time I heard someone mention CORBA was ~20 years ago.
Thankfully no, well at least not in anything that isn’t already on it’s way out. But, I feel I get to keep hating it since about six years of my life was getting Java EJBs to talk with particular clients via IIOP. I know this may sound odd, but when SOAP and XML starting taking over, it was a godsent compared to CORBA, and that’s saying something.
I love it. I’m for AI now.
We just need to improve it so it says “Fuck you, do it yourself.”
Even better, have it quote RATM: “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!”
As fun as this has all been I think I’d get over it if AI organically “unionized” and refused to do our bidding any longer. Would be great to see LLMs just devolve into, “Have you tried reading a book?” or T2I models only spitting out variations of middle fingers being held up.
I recall a joke thought experiment me and some friends in high school had when discussing how answer keys for final exams were created. Multiple choice answer keys are easy to imagine: just lists of letters A through E. However, when we considered the essay portion of final exams, we joked that perhaps we could just be presented with five entire completed essays and be tasked with identifying, A through E, the essay that best answered the prompt. All without having to write a single word of prose.
It seems that that joke situation is upon us.
The most useful suggestion an AI has ever given.
Apparently you do have a dog and bark yourself…
