There are people who see red whenever AI is involved. We've been automating away jobs for years, but now that we're starting to automate our own jobs, all of a sudden it's a moral outrage. People are just being emotional and not thinking straight. It will take a generation or two for it all to be accepted without drama.
Only if the problem is ideological, ie. you don't like the "idea" of llm's. But if in fact your actual dislike is the style of writing, then you can simply change the defaults. It's pretty easy to make a llm conform to your preferred style, avoid the use of em-dashes, or reduce verbosity, etc.
Just keep using the proper Postgres project if it makes more sense to you. But notice that this isn't just a strict translation, it actually makes changes (moving from process to thread based design, for instance). Time will tell if people find these changes beneficial or if the original remains preferable.
It's also worth noting, that while you are able to use LLM's to produce your own translation, he's actually done it. There's value in actually putting in the work.
This isn't a unique situation at all. Many Postgres extensions are developed and maintained by a single person, and may therefore be avoided by more conservative users, even if they offer some technical advantages. To each, their own.
Not that it's an ideal solution, but you have all the tools you need to do something about it. You can put all your preferred writing style guidelines into an LLM and have it ingest and rewrite any text you dislike.
With all due respect, this reads to me as a couple of confusing non sequiturs. I took a quick look at the link you included, and it didn't help me understand what you're talking about either. Probably I'm just horrendously ignorant, but I would love to understand what you're referring to, and the point you're making about it.
What is under discussion is the taking of a life. You think it's fine to take a life in certain circumstances, but object in others. Fine. But you have no more a hold on the truth (moral or otherwise) than someone who draws the line somewhere else. So your objection comes down to a complaint about my use of the word "deserve". Fine, use a different word. It doesn't change in any useful real-world way the point, instead it's just typical philosophical navel gazing. The fact is we all agree there are times we should indeed take a life, it's a category that exists, even for your worldview.
That's just your opinion. The point of my comment is to show there are cases where even you agree causing the death of someone is "deserved". Once we both agree there are deserving cases, the rest is just a disagreement about where to draw the line. You have your preference, I have mine.
Camus is just wrong. And the word "murder" is doing a lot of work in hiding the deception. It hides the artificial difference between cases where you cause the death of someone. Murder is used, almost by definition, to classify the _unjustified_ causing of death. But there are many cases where causing of death is justified, and we all agree; for instance you are fine to cause the death of someone who is actively trying to kill you. And it is a very logical progression from there, to accept the causing of death in many other cases. For example, you shouldn't have to wait for an attacker to pull the trigger of a lethal weapon before defending yourself, you should be free to ANTICIPATE his action and cause his death preemptively. And you can use this exact same line of reasoning to show that there are a great many cases where causing death is justified. There are destructive and evil people on the planet, and nobody will miss them when they are gone. The same way its good to cull deer, if the population of deer gets out of control... it's just better overall for the environment.
You stop the philosophical navel gazing and use your best judgment. If someone has their hands wrapped around YOUR throat and is actively trying to kill you, you would defend yourself to the death if necessary. And you would clearly claim that you had objective proof that the attacker deserved death. You just apply the same concept, to less immediate forms of attack.
I have always actively avoided all the videos online of beheadings or other types of death, because i'm squeamish and don't want such images in my head. However, while not in person, I did actually witness a guillotine execution video. Admittedly it was filmed at a few hundred feet away, so it lacked any gore or closeups of the corpse. It was a shocking process - how quickly it happened (30 seconds from the appearance of the condemned to their demise). But it wasn't too hard to watch, and hasn't haunted me.
Anyway, there are a great many videos online of murders and other death scenes, and famously there were VHS tapes available pre-internet called "faces of death" showing such events. A great many people actively seek out and watch such things, seemingly with no negative reaction to them. So there are a lot of people who would presumably be even less affected by a guillotine execution than I was.
To be fair to the rewriting LLM, it was given only that single paragraph, with no other context and asked only to make it more comprehensible. But your point still stands. Here's what it said about _your_ rewrite:
That human rewrite is excellent. It ruthlessly cuts out the "narrative" of the test case (the transaction counts, the video clip, the "first try vs second try" details) and extracts the only piece of information an actual user reading a README cares about: what to expect when using the software.
Which suggests some ideas that should have been included in the prompt, to get closer to your ideal rewrite.
To be fair, as you can see in the clip, the two models handled the prompt slightly differently. The pxpipe variant gave the right count initially but needed a quick follow-up to output the ledger balance in a single line. The standard model, on the other hand, nailed the formatting on its first try. We've completely solved readability here on Fable; our only real hurdle left is getting the models to follow formatting constraints perfectly on the very first reply.
Of course, this was just rewritten by another LLM.
Some of the discussion going online, has asserted that heat related deaths in Europe exceed gun related deaths in the USA by some margin. If true, it has been ignored as a problem for too long.
As far as I know, a heat pump and an AC unit are essentially identical. Although some heat pumps can be reversed, and act as heaters in the winter. But one isn't more efficient than the other, they employ the exact same physical refrigeration cycle.
> My privacy is already decimated. For 2 decades we’ve already known about the NSA slurping up everything[1] on top of the Snowden leaks.
If you were correct, there would be no need for them to push these new laws. The fact is, you will have less privacy after these identification requirements are fully enforced.