I wouldn't be surprised if a fair majority of them have been taught to see goto as nothing but a vestige of the 70s which should never be used under any circumstances except as a meme or to deliberately obfuscate code.
I have recently become quite fond of goto-based error handling and find it a lot cleaner and more readable than the if-else-mountains you otherwise end up with. I just make sure to leave a comment with a link to xkcd.com/292 so anyone else reading it knows I'm aware of what I'm doing. Now with this URL trick I can do both in one line. :)
Any time you want to sign up for any "open social" platform, you have to rush to claim your domain name. If someone else got there first, too bad. And that domain name applies to every app using this protocol. So no chance to claim it on another app, ever.
So what, exactly, is the difference between this and internet handles? In fact, isn't this worse?
I suppose the difference is that you only have to rush to claim your domain name (the DNS kind) once and then you get to use it for all "open social" platforms rather than doing that for your username on each platform.
OTOH I read the success rate is only 50-50 at detecting it. AI text does leave some clues, like those infamous em dashes, but those can be patched with some simple edits. AI images are more obvious because many are intentionally overwrought.
It depends on what the AI is trying to do. If you write a novel and ask the AI to improve the prose it becomes very obvious if you've dealt with AI prose before.
The quoted part is really amazing. The author of the article just makes claims and clearly hasn't been exposed to any real art or music education. I suppose to some extent he means taste in programming, but anyone who is writing such an article does not have that either.
We can also talk about taste in articles, which seems to have degenerated to "any pro-AI article will be voted up and defended".
I'm not sure if this counts as a pro-AI article, but I agree. It's void of substance.
The most ironic part:
> When someone preaches about AI taste, ask them to show you their work from before AI. If they can’t demonstrate taste in their pre-AI work, they’re not qualified to lecture you about it now.
The designer wants huge amounts of screen space wasted on unnnecessary padding, massive Fisher-Price rounded corners, and fancy fading and sliding animations that get in the way and slow things down. (Moreover, the designer just happens to want to completely re-design everything a few months later.)
The customer “ooh”s and “aah”s at said fancy animations running on the salesman’s top of the line macbook pro and is lured in, only realising too late that they’ve been bitten in the ass by the enormous amount of bloat that makes it run like a potato on any computer that costs less than four thousand dollars.
And US/EU laws are written by clueless bureaucrats whose most recent experience with technology is not even an electric typewriter.
Be honest. Did you write this comment with an LLM?
Why should it matter beyond correctness of the content, which you and the author need to evaluate either way.
Personally, I'm exhausted with this sentiment. There's no value in questioning how something gets written, only the output matters. Otherwise we'd be asking the same about pencils, typewriters, dictionaries and spellcheck in some pointless persuit of purity.
What, surely you’re not implying that bangers like the following are GPT artifacts!? “The changes aren’t just cosmetic; they represent a fundamental shift in how we approach server-side JavaScript development.”
True! But writing an egregiously erroneous blogpost used to take actual effort. The existence of a blogpost was a form of proof of work that a human at least thought they knew enough about a topic to write it down and share it.
Now the existence of this blogpost is only evidence that the author has sufficient AI credits they are able to throw some release notes at Claude and generate some markdown, which is not really differentiating.
I'm not sure - a lot of the top comments are saying that this article is great and they learned a lot of new things. Which is great, as long as the things they learned are true things.
reply