hell, even when a human enters the data, from the business, into 'google', that data can be wrong...as I discovered just 3 days ago when a restaurant with "recently updated hours" said they should be open until 10pm...and were closed when I arrived at 8:45.

so yeah, if i'm investing in a trip to another freakin' country, damn right i'm gonna have every scheduled event or location double-checked by contacting a human at in the know some point in the process.

I spend quite a bit on Discord server services, but I'm out.

GFY, Discord and governments, for mandating this bullshit nonsense.

I also bought nice charging bricks. I don't need any more.

As a dev in a relatively large team (divided into sub-teams), the faster we make coding tools (even if it is just internal libraries to turn 20 lines of boilerplate into 1 line of code, to turn large if-else chains into declarative look-up systems), the faster the code comes out... ...and the more QA needs to happen to verify every thing is working to whatever our level of mission-critical is.

The code is not always the bottleneck (until you get to a big new feature or a big necessary rewrite). The process of QA and regression testing is, as well as the need to spread features out to avoid overwhelming the current user-base that are just trying to get their job done and hate it when something appears that breaks muscle memory. "Damn Engineers, always love to change things." - Dr. McCoy.

Of course, this presumes your management cares about such things. Maybe for internal projects they won't and that could be an outlet for vibe and 'speed to delivery' ahead of anything else. But customer-facing code has customer-facing concerns that slow things down a lot more than just how fast your devs can churn code or churn themselves.

Correct.

If you are not a tech person, right now from all the hype and news and bullshit, you would rightly assume that AI is an amazing revolution and you would barely have heard about its shortcomings.

Though that might've just been him thinking "stupid Europeans know only Moscow, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk. I'll just say Moscow, close enough."

This. I've had to descend a mountain as the sun was going down once (got stuck at the top due to weather for some time, and when it let up enough for a safe descent, it was late). It's absolutely not fun, even when there's still some light. Had it been dark, I think I would've taken my chances staying at the top rather than going down.

That said, anyone not a complete idiot checks things like "time of last cable car" a) in person, b) at the day, c) at the location. Because even there is an official website that is well-maintained (and that's already two big if's) things might change at the location due to weather, workers being ill, no tourists that day or whatever.

Also, checking in person means at least one other person knows that you're up there.

Talking to people in public isnâ(TM)t harassment.

Talking to people on taxpayer funded grounds also isnâ(TM)t trespass.

Tax funded?

Not private property anymore.

AI is a tool. And like any tool its introduction creates proponents and enemies.

Some might say I'm a semi-professional writer. As in: I make money with things I write. From that perspective, I see both the AI slop and the benefits. I love that AI gives me an on-demand proof-reader. I don't expect it to be anywhere near a professional in that field. But if I want to quickly check a text I wrote for specific things, AI is great, because unlike me it hasn't been over that sentence 20 times already and still parses it completely.

As for AI writing - for the moment it's still pretty obvious, and it's mostly low-quality (unless some human has added their own editing).

The same way that the car, the computer, e-mail and thousands of other innovations have made some jobs obsolete, some jobs easier, and some jobs completely new, I don't see AI as a threat. And definitely not to my writing. Though good luck Amazon with the flood of AI-written garbage now clogging up your print-on-demand service.

Right.

Yes, I guess it will. By hopefully making people switch away from YT music en mass.

Trivially obviously not. The LLM wasn't trained on texts exclusively written by the human using it, so it won't ever speak like that particular person.

If someone wants to train a specific "Tarrof" LLM - go ahead. I'm simply advocating against poisoning the already volatile generic LLM data with more human bullshit.

This post was indeed brought to you by ChatGPT.

That is true but also besides the point. Communicating like "a human" is the point here. WHICH human, exactly? We already have problems with hallucinations. If we now train them on huge data sets intentionally designed for the human habit of saying the opposite of what you mean, we're adding another layer of problems. Maybe get the other ones solved first?

Of course. This is a forum, not a scientific conference, so I'm not speaking in the most precise language.

It doesn't change the point.