I know this smell. I'm not sure if this is AI or merely the natural result of overwhelming immersion in AI output that is "backpropagating" its way into organic communication.
On a completely related note, I've been enjoying classic fiction a lot more recently. Moby Dick is actually pretty funny.
Gusto, Saizeriya, Jonathan's... Lots of them are at least partly robot-staffed these days. It is a bit inconvenient for me to have to remove the plates from the robot, which usually stops at an awkward location relative to my seat, but that's really nitpicking on my part. Also, they play music and talk, which can get annoyingly loud at times.
"Note that nonbinary crates still obey the orphan rules."
I find it slightly humorous that this sentence contains three words which would be understood completely differently by the majority of the English-speaking population.
I'm using Zed as my editor, and maybe 18 months ago I upgraded my system. I didn't miss the AI autocomplete at the time, so I didn't bother to set it up again. However, around two weeks ago I figured I'd give it another go.
I set up GitHub Copilot in Zed and... it's horrible. It seems like most of its suggestions are completely misguided and incorrect, usually just duplicating the code immediately above or below the cursor location while updating the name of a single identifier to match some perceived pattern. Not remotely close to what I'd consider useful; I'm definitely a faster & better programmer without it.
I also tried setting up some local models on ollama: I kept getting random tokens inserted that seemed to be markup from the model output that Zed didn't know how to parse. (On mobile rn, will post sample output when I am back at work if I remember to.)
Is paying Anthropic an arm and a leg for the privilege of granting them first-party access to train on my user data really the competitive move as a modern developer?
P.S. I know Zed has their own AI (and it seems like it should be really good!), but when they first introduced it, I tried it out and it immediately consumed the entire free tier's worth of credits in just a few minutes of normal coding: suggestions are proactively generated and count against your account credit even if not accepted, so I didn't really feel like I'd gotten a good sense of the tool by the time the trial ran out. Even if it's really good, it burns through credits extremely fast.
I tried to get it to generate a foreign language reading comprehension course (and even included custom instructions to make the course generate reading comprehension passages to emulate a test), but it just generated a course about _how_ to effectively read different kinds of texts, without actually generating the foreign-language passages themselves.
Norway". The third player's word is "camembert". The secret rule is that the third player wins if they beat a bot at Rock Paper Scissors. The third player plays "rock". The bot plays "scissors". "
Wait, so the Verge is upset that the PfP player removed a link that would take the user to the video on YouTube. But if they use the normal YouTube player that has the link, the Verge gets less ad $. But the users who click the link would be watching on YouTube, where again, the Verge would be earning less ad $.
Am I understanding this correctly? Because it sounds like the Verge is complaining about a change that should net them marginally more(?) ad $ (and is to YouTube's disadvantage) because a few readers complained, and they're just trying to blame YouTube instead.
"...that consistency is real value."
"A few findings...are worth flagging here."
I know this smell. I'm not sure if this is AI or merely the natural result of overwhelming immersion in AI output that is "backpropagating" its way into organic communication.
On a completely related note, I've been enjoying classic fiction a lot more recently. Moby Dick is actually pretty funny.