@unclebobmartin I wish this were true.
Well organized, concise code is better for both humans and AI.
The extraneous misleading comments have little value and sometimes are not maintained.
The nonsensical, not DRY code organization provides worse future context.
@atmoio Let’s replace code with language that is more human. How original!
Code isn’t hard. Logic, rigor, and design are hard. Code makes those things easier.
I don’t have the answers, but I don’t think Truell does either. His vision is… eye rolling.
@ariaradnia Too expensive? Maybe. But I think they just bought the best AI customer service chatbot. Assume it is rapidly growing.
https://t.co/2kxghbAq4P
@JoyceCarolOates I think it is the judgement in the fouls.
In futbol, football, and basketball there is a mountain of subjectivity between illegal and allowed contact.
Baseball doesn’t have this problem.
And in combat sports, the lines seem more clear.
@atmoio I don’t feel like this when I am shaping/reviewing/tweaking all the code my AI produces.
Even when I am more vibe coding, there is usually some aspect of UI I fixate on and feel like that part is still me… maybe?
@TSOH_Investing Triggered by the VC quoted as saying “the thing is, young people don’t want to work and AI is better than them anyway.”
Half a VC’s job is to think abstractly about human behavior. When they are bad at it, it is often ugly and painful.
Sorry, tangent. Duolingo guy is on point.
@iruletheworldmo What I took away:
* We have no definition of general intelligence
* If you look how LLMs *actually* perform today, the limitations and statistical roots are obvious
* Be skeptical of corporations ignoring these facts and claiming more
But @atmoio says it better.
@atmoio@nic_carter yes LLMs slip up plenty. But the real defect is the steady hum of bullshitting.
LLMs can’t fill the gap between their knowledge and your novel problem, but they do anyway. With words that sound good but aren’t.
An evolution of hallucinations. It’s constant.