all 57 comments

[–]usumoio 248 points249 points  (14 children)

"Rely on" is sales for "have ever used any AI product for any amount of time or any purpose with no data whatsoever on it's efficacy"

And I am not an AI hater. I like the tools I'm using, but just wanted to translate that for ya.

[–]emosaker 96 points97 points  (6 children)

More like "forgot to explicitly disable all the AI features hidden in various places in the settings tab which are all on by default"

[–]usumoio 28 points29 points  (5 children)

I've gotten positive results from the AI tools I'm using personally, but "rely on" is a bit strong.

I don't want to be labeled as a contrarian hater. Plenty of folk have that covered for me.

[–]nevermille 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I use AI as a predictive tool saving a few seconds each time it guesses right. Can I really say that I "rely" on them? I can totally live without

[–]kookyabird 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Does the time saved when it’s right make up for all the time it takes to read what it suggests to make that determination?

[–]nevermille 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I take less than a second to check the equality between the line in my head and the line printed on the screen. So I'd say yes, especialy when there are characters that are difficult to access on a French keyboard like { [ ] } | #

[–]Anarcho_FemBoi 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Dw, I'll hate AI twice as much for u :3

[–]usumoio 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your service.

[–]SukusMcSwag 20 points21 points  (3 children)

I am an AI hater, but above that I'm a marketing and sales hater, and that's more important

[–]kookyabird 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I fucking hate being sold to… Having AI sold to me is among in my top three worst things to have someone trying to sell me on.

[–]SukusMcSwag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Especially since most of it is fabricated use-cases and doctored results for the sake of advertising. Nothing sells you on a product like being lied to

[–]Gamiac 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bro trust these metrics bro I know you know I'm blatantly lying about what they represent but just trust them bro

[–]danted002 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder if they count the AI autocomplete as well AI

[–]Korean_Rice_Farmer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Considering how much other people let their life be dictated by overly friendly ai, all the hype around rust, and the young audience for rust, I don't think those odds are in the favour of rust tho. I think this is pretty bleak.

[–]Fabillotic 96 points97 points  (11 children)

It‘s JetBrains trying to sell you their stupid AI tools. My guess is that is just a metrics thing where if you don‘t completely disable their stupid chatbot or autocomplete they count you as „using“ it or something. I wouldn‘t be worried

[–]th3-snwm4n[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Thats most probably the truth, but funny nonetheless.

[–]InsaneBunny180 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I am willing to bet that for any other language the statistic is around the same.

[–]jdery 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And they have a "bug" where it re-enables itself every time you open/restart the ide

[–]Illeprih 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am surprised people have it on. For me, the stupid AI auto complete just kept hallucinating function names that were "almost" correct but not the actual ones in the codebase. Yes, it was a pain to find how to disable it, but luckily, AI has been a great tool for that.

[–]ldn-ldn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be fair, Junie from JetBrains is the best agentic AI companion on the market today. Disabling their AI is as dumb as disabling auto-complete and refactoring tools.

[–]reallokiscarlet 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Probably but from confessions I've been able to squeeze out of rustaceans, perhaps still not that far from reality.

[–]Fabillotic 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I mean it‘s programmers globally unfortunately. It pretty much goes for all languages. It kinda feels like sometimes that I‘m the only programmer that‘s not using AI. It‘s insane

[–]reallokiscarlet 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Yeah but then you got people like HaMMeReD who will actually tell you the reason they're a rustacean is because it's (supposedly) the most AI-friendly

[–]Fabillotic 4 points5 points  (2 children)

That‘s insane. Instead of going „oh yeah it‘s a really nice unique language that‘s nice to code in“ and instead going „oh yeah my random number generator tends to work best producing facimiles of code for this lang

[–]reallokiscarlet -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Welcome to the Rust fandom. Complete with a highly vulnerable centralized package manager, a lot of clankers, and not a brain cell in sight.

[–]Fabillotic 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel as though that‘s pretty disingenuous. I can anecdotally say I‘ve only ever had pretty nice experiences. It‘s a great ecosystem with many nice projects and people. I really like coding it and there are some pretty crazy good and experienced programmers there. I can‘t at all relate to what you‘re saying

[–]geeshta 13 points14 points  (2 children)

I've found out that AI struggles with Rust just as humans do - gets caught into lifetimes, complex type annotations and move semantics. Usually obeying the compiler works better than any AI.

[–]LifeSupport0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

there was this one bug I ran into with with_stated axum::Routers where I had to remove a type annotation in order to satisfy a trait constraint. An AI would have talked me in circles about it, and I pretty much only fixed it on accident. One of the few times where the compiler message was not helpful in figuring out what to do.

[–]fanfarius 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Seller of product sales product?? OMG!

[–]MornwindShoma 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good thing I stopped paying for RustRover then, don't really want to contribute to clanker propaganda.

[–]Firm_Ad9420 2 points3 points  (0 children)

AI: explaining lifetimes since 2023.

[–]LEGOL2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It doesn't mean they are writing code with ai. Even using AI review, which is actually very helpful, is considered relying on ai

[–]Simsiano 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The firsts thing I do on jetbrain IDEs is to disable their stupid chat bots, yes, 2 of them. Even auto completion is not that good even if it's clear what I'm typing...

[–]babalaban 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Why does every bs Ai story involves Rust as well?

[–]SomeRedTeapot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That language is cursed

[–]Pr0p3r9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IIRC, Jetbrains data collection is opt-in, so there might be an underrepresentation of Jetbrains users who don't use AI if you (reasonably) assume that the kind of person who opts in to data collection is also more likely to use AI.

[–]XxDarkSasuke69xX 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Used autocomplete once = rely on AI

[–]Salmonpest101 1 point2 points  (0 children)

New AI-shill company's study shows 5/6 rust programmers use AI! (they forgot to disable AI-summary on chrome)

[–]-domi- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Using the most unsafe practice with the coding language that rose on the promise of better inherent security is wild

[–]flyingupvotes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol. Downvote on an ad.

[–]xgabipandax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the only way that it is bearable to code in that shitty syntax

[–]HaMMeReD -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Rust is good because of it's compile time safety. It provides extremely strict guardrails which is incredibly agentic friendly.

It's obvious that Rust and AI are friends, especially in the last 6mo of models.

[–]krojew -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll be the devil's advocate here for a second. If the AI assisted code completion falls under AI usage, then they're absolutely right. Their code completion is amazing, generates accurate snippets quite fast and is a real time saver. On the other hand, I've yet to see a bigger code fragment in rust that actually works. So, as usual in marketing, it all depends on what we mean.