So, as usual this might be a translation issue, but I wasn’t aware that an attachment has a direction. The debugger would obviously feed its output to the llm in this scenario, so the two things are attached to each other in the sense of the word that I got from a dictionary. As the debugger gives a filename as well, feeding the files contents as well, asking for improvements and overwriting the original file would be trivial, so automating it should be easy enough. Attachment was meant here only in the sense of “well, they’re connected and data goes from a to b”.
Would such a setup make sense? Not really. But you know, that’s why it’s a four-panel-comic and not some overrated ai startup. Or maybe it is, it seems like making sense isn’t really a requirement for tech startups anymore.
Ah. Definitely a translation issue. I didn’t realize there was a translation involved. Or that you were the author. I wouldn’t have been so critical otherwise. You’re doing great.
“Attachment” in general doesn’t have a direction, but in the context of “attach debugger”, it does, because the target of the attachment is the process you want to inspect. In this case, the process is the code you’re writing, not the LLM helping you write it.
So, yeah, my mother tongue is German, so the English texts may be a little bumpy here or there. I feel confident enough with my English but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a secondary language for me and this is not really a professional project where I could pay some natively English speaking nerd to fix my mistakes.
That said I’m aware how debuggers attach to the processes they’re analysing, I just wasn’t aware that this would turn the word exclusive if used in this context. Thanks for bringing it up though! Learned something!
So, as usual this might be a translation issue, but I wasn’t aware that an attachment has a direction. The debugger would obviously feed its output to the llm in this scenario, so the two things are attached to each other in the sense of the word that I got from a dictionary. As the debugger gives a filename as well, feeding the files contents as well, asking for improvements and overwriting the original file would be trivial, so automating it should be easy enough. Attachment was meant here only in the sense of “well, they’re connected and data goes from a to b”.
Would such a setup make sense? Not really. But you know, that’s why it’s a four-panel-comic and not some overrated ai startup. Or maybe it is, it seems like making sense isn’t really a requirement for tech startups anymore.
Ah. Definitely a translation issue. I didn’t realize there was a translation involved. Or that you were the author. I wouldn’t have been so critical otherwise. You’re doing great.
“Attachment” in general doesn’t have a direction, but in the context of “attach debugger”, it does, because the target of the attachment is the process you want to inspect. In this case, the process is the code you’re writing, not the LLM helping you write it.
No worries, and please remain critical.
So, yeah, my mother tongue is German, so the English texts may be a little bumpy here or there. I feel confident enough with my English but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a secondary language for me and this is not really a professional project where I could pay some natively English speaking nerd to fix my mistakes.
That said I’m aware how debuggers attach to the processes they’re analysing, I just wasn’t aware that this would turn the word exclusive if used in this context. Thanks for bringing it up though! Learned something!