> Good doesn't mean perfect. it doesn't mean flawless.
"Good" means "I can trust it to give me code that is at least as good as what a moderately skilled human would produce". They still aren't there, even after years of development. They still regularly give you code that doesn't follow the correct logic, or which isn't even syntactically valid. They are not good, or even remotely good.
That's just your expectation. if it can do as much as the least competent human, that's already a huge deal. You're expecting it to think for you instead of assist you.
You know what it is capable of, use it accordingly. it saves lots of time in troubleshooting, and generating starter code. in some cases, it can generate full featured complete production apps that people are using without major issues on its own.
Even with your example, you have to fix syntax and errors here and there, instead of writing it from scratch. Which approach takes more time, that depends on the model, the code and you. like the author, your measuring stuck is humans for some reason.
You know it's not really "AI" right, that's just a marketing term. there is no intelligence involved. it's auto completion. your argument is like saying IDE auto completion isn't always great so it should never be used.
Exactly. There's no benefit to using LLMs as they exist today, because it winds up being the same amount of work (if not more!) to ensure that they are giving you code which actually works. That isn't a useful tool.
I have seen Mario Kart arcade cabinets, but had no idea about the history behind them. Thanks to the Dolphin team for a great article, and hats off on the emulation work!
To be fair, that's what I have done. I try to use AI every now and then for small, easy things. It isn't yet reliable for those things, and always makes mistakes I have to clean up. Therefore I'm not going to trust it with anything more complicated yet.
No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control. If losing your job is traumatic to you, that is a sign you need to work on improving your detachment from outside factors. Obviously we all have bills to pay and would like to keep a roof over our heads, but being traumatized by losing a job is an extremely unhealthy (and abnormal) response.
If one is relying on their job for food/clothing/shelter, it is necessarily traumatic to lose those things. Perhaps for you, losing your job does not constitute a traumatic event, but anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck it most certainly would be.
I think I kinda forgot that not everyone has stoic framing for their viewpoint with my original post lol. You do an excellent job of saying what I meant without describing things in a way that many (maybe most?) people would misconstrue. Thank you.
> No, he's right. One should not pin their happiness to things outside their control.
I don't think this opinion is realistic or helpful. Being fired has an important impact on your happiness and the quality of life of you and your family, specially if the next job forces your family to move.
Some people are forced into homelessness when fired. Are we supposed to pretend that losing your home does not hamper your happiness?
It's unhelpful to suggest we should not stress about things outside of our control, because we still need to deal with them.
That's only true if you use a definition of "violence" which is so far outside the accepted definition as to make conversation impossible. Farming and mining are in no way violence unless you resort to idiosyncratic definitions.
I guess if you limit “violence” to violence against humans only? I’ve always thought that violence was applicable to animals and plants as well, so I guess we differ there.
Intentional harm that causes death is firmly in the violence category, imho.
the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy is pretty much the accepted definition, afaik
I’m not thinking of violence as some kind of universal bad thing though, it’s part of the natural world.
Huh. I don’t think in my experience that the term violence is seldom applied to things outside of humans, and IME the terms economic violence and social violence, emotional violence, and many others are common parlance. Perhaps we come from different cultures. At any rate, given the definition I find in several dictionaries I think my point stands. I will concede that coercion, exploitation, or extortion might be better descriptors.
The term violence, when applied in any context, is applied in context. With a scope and meaning determined as much by tacitly accepted scope as it is by lexicon.
So, to all of your questions— “no”. You are wrong, on all counts, because you are using language itself to set a scene where it has no right, attempting to have a meaning context-free applied to one contextual—- but only when it suits you. That isn’t conversation or discussion— it’s performative, and so you cannot be correct where there is no correctness to be had, only performance.
I agree with you on context, but given my original context :
“Employment is almost always exploitation on one side or the other, with the best case being mutual exploitation.
Employment inherently involves paying less for your work than it is worth. In an ideal situation, in exchange you get access to tools at a cost less than they cost to access on your own.
It’s inherently violent on some level. Ending violence shouldn’t be traumatic.”
I invoke violence in the context of exploitation or coercion. It seems clear to me that “inherently violent on some level” clearly invokes an unconventional interpretation of “violence” implicitly aligned with the previous context.
I have to conclude that a misconception of what was meant by “violence” here is either pedantism, low reading comprehension, or intellectual belligerence for the sake of grandstanding on a point. I really am having a great deal of difficulty substantiating a more charitable interpretation.
Perhaps you are accidentally missing the OP in this case and are missing the entire contextual picture?
You are right, some people are stretching that word a lot.
I don’t think that’s changed how most people interpret the word. More of a weakening of its meaning often with an activist or persuasive bent.
Toxic is another word similarly getting stretched and watered down by some.
> Farming is violence.
This would definitely fall into the stretched / watered down pattern.
I don’t think the other strong words you are using are any different in this context.
I am not saying you don’t have a point, but over dramatizing can make it hard to relate to, when people are being expected to accept a level of verbal shrillness that isn’t necessary to make a point.
Humanity is certainly damaging a lot of ecosystems, not by any single farmer, but in aggregate. Change is normal, but we are driving it faster than nature can keep up with. It is a problem.
But outside of poetic or proselytizing use, violence usually means inflicting intentional harm, not a problem of conflict between reasonable local tradeoffs (creating food being a positive use of land) vs. the global impact that needs to be balanced too.
reply