Shitting on people “thinking too much” is the most destructive attitude you can have in software development. That is how we build real skills. It doesn’t matter if your opinion is that the thing being used to exercise on is weird or useless.
I (63m) sent her (19f) a card just asking for friendship
I feel there are strong judgements to be made already.
*Alexandra
Why in git, and why on GitHub?
Why not in Lemmy comments?
Yep! In just 86500000 milliseconds. 🫡
…on questions generated from known course material, of which heaps of similar questions, approved answers, and discussions are in the LLM’s data set.
So the expensive search engine pointed at the answers database managed to find answers.
This is marketing.
“Soft cancel” as in stopped talking about it long ago and dodging questions about it.
The actual statement has too many qualifiers:
“As we get imminently closer to launch—and I say that in game development language—it’s very hard to keep it under wraps”
“As we get” is not “we are”. He is saying that in some indeterminate future where they are getting closer to launch, they will say more.
By not having more to say, the implication is that they are not close. They also soft-cancelled the 2026 release estimate, and did not put forward a new one. If they were anywhere near getting it done, they’d be talking which quarter of 2027 by now.
I don’t care whether it goes away. Neither have tapeworms, and while some people claim it helps with weight loss, most people are not up for it.
The first usecase: One-off scripts. That is “do my homework for me” help. You can spend a minute reading the manual instead. Next time you do it, you can do it faster than through the LLM.
The second usecase touches on something you might be bad at: abstractions and maintainability. We already had autocomplete. Autocompleting a block of code is a sign that you are not writing anything new and a signal to think about whether there is semantic duplication in the code that should be explored. Avoiding the annoyance of writing the block is you solving the wrong problem.
I have yet to see a developer endorse LLM output in an area they are able to do useful work in.
Either it is someone who thought the LLM helped them write unit tests, and it’s never tests that capture the intent of the code, because they don’t know that is important. They see tests as “this stuff I have to add for process reasons”.
Or it is an LLM helping them write a fade-in tooltip with 200+ lines of React Javascript, because they don’t know this is a one-line CSS rule.
Or have the LLM add code documentation that does nothing but repeat the function signature, because they don’t understand they need to empathize with the person using of maintaining the functions. Write something that helps jump a non-obvious gap, or write nothing.
Or have the LLM do code review because they think it’s about obsessing over syntax, not about discussing how the change applies to the intent.
Or have the LLM write their pull requests because they think it’s a boring process thing that summarizes the change, and not a discussion of the purpose, intent, cost, value and approach of the change.
Moral: If you think LLM is good at X, it’s because you really really suck at X, and you need to get better at it instead of pumping out shit work faster while learning less.
Frameworks can be fine. Using them before understanding what you make is not. At that point you often see it is faster and better to just make the parts you needed yourself.
Model as in you have a clear opinion on what your system does, why, how, and what it doesn’t do. A model evolves during development, which is where it becomes hard: You always need to make room for things you didn’t predict, so you need to adapt and refine the system model so that the change makes sense.
Adding features until a full system explanation consists largely of “but”, “and also” or “except”, things like “and you should ask Bea about how that part works” or the worst of all “this part can be anything”, is the opposite of working from a model.
We’ve had a growing invisible divide in software for two decades now:
A: People who jam in frameworks, copy examples online, and adopt “processes” and principles that bigger companies claim work for them, that only result in pulverizing responsibility, speed and understanding. They don’t expect to understand their tools. They fudge them until they stop giving off visible problems and wrap that up in “grown up words” by making ineffectual unit tests, make a PR, tagging it “bugfix: ticket #877”, sending it to review, debating some syntax, and spend the next two years debugging the system because of all the small things that go wrong because the thing they make don’t behave according to a clear mental model.
B: People who don’t think knowing a single programming language counts as competence, and prefer making things according to a model (instead of copying someone else’s framework and contorting their own work to fit inside it)
Group A are the reason shit sucks today, and they believe LLMs can code, because they themselves can barely code and just copy impressive looking convoluted shit from others anyway.
People get so extremist when I set fire to their property.
I feel threatened. It is unsafe that they are allowed to be angry at me.
On the “satire” part:
If it is “ironocally” taking real payments to “ironically” provide the advertised service to “ironically” do harm, the fine sure call it satire if you really want to but don’t make it out to be a defense.
They are doing harm illegally and should be “ironically” sued to bits. Jail them satirically if it helps.
Any game with grinding where microtransactions can invalidate weeks of grind.
It’s already a big ask to make players find fun in a grind, but some C-level dipshits found a way to stamp that fun out too.
Yeah, it’s what they do. Generate convincing text. Calling it “errors” makes as much sense as claiming my dice “produced errors” when I lost at yahtzee.
An illustrative example: https://kucharski.substack.com/p/real-signals-or-artificial-stereotypes
"First, I’d created 2000 free-text responses and labelled them ‘UK’. Then I copied and pasted the exact same 2000 responses but labelled these ‘US’. Finally, I combined them to create a dataset of 4000 total responses, and jumbled them up.
Despite the responses being identical for the UK and US, Copilot produced a rich, detailed summary of how US and UK respondents differed."
No, AI companies don’t “have a PR problem”
They are the problem. It’s in their bones. Harm is their business model. It is not fixable. This is not a case of handing out enough pizza and smiling harder.
A business with incentives to lie and zero consequences for lying, says something about business.
This is not news.
Thanks, I hate it, the people who invented it, the people who assembled the panels, the people who wrote the software, the people who sold it, the people who bought it, the people who installed it, the people who designed the ads for it, the people who maintain it, and the people buying ads for it.
None of them deserve to find happiness.
Ooh an
advertisementarticle about AI being useful! Let’s play Qualifier Bingo!An olympic level jump across different meanings of the word “automation”. That is worth two points!
Hell yeah, 11 points! This gives the article a factuality rating of… “Fucking Scam”