I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.
The act of shooting the pitbull makes for good dramatics, but you would get zero sympathy from me if your local government banned pitbull ownership. e.g. Ontario bans pitbulls. I don't have a problem with that.
The intro lobbed up a clear cut point of contention for the article to address. I found the following writing to loose steam on that point. I turned to skimming, and did not manage to find a conclusion.
I suspect the stance they described as one readers mistakenly took away from their previous article to in fact be their stance. Otherwise why dance around it so hard?
I call meetings to force others to think about the contents of an email for more than 2 minutes.
I won't say there are zero times where face to face conversation is beneficial. But forcing someone to not be distracted by "multitasking" while they work through their inbox, is not one of them.
This is such an optimistic article ignoring the problem. There is downward pressure to reduce the rigorousness of pull requests.
More static checking and AI analysis of changes are good things, everything else being equal. But they're not sufficient to offset the additional review demands of AI pull requests.
> This layered model keeps PRs moving without lowering standards.
> Accountability stays with the human. But the human review becomes more about judgment and less about mechanical inspection when baseline checks are already handled.
> But as AI generates more of the code, the industry will likely move toward more radical review models.
Quit dancing around it and just advocate pushing to main. The PR model is to have a quality gate. If review throughput is seen a bottleneck, don't saddle people with accountability for changes they're pressured to let through.
It's simpler than that, some people just like sardonic writing. I don't know if I believe Ed any more than some AI cheerleader. But his writing is proper relaxing compared to hype rants that I wouldn't blame someone for suspecting to be coke-fueled.
Why would it need to be erudite pinkie up critiqué?
Can't it be 404 throwing a little egg on google's face? Point out their shit smells every once in a while.
Yeah, there's no big revelation here. Just what you would expect the rank and file at a slopshop subjected to the current state of AI think of the slop when they ain't publicly shilling for the home team.
But pointing this all out is fine, especially when there's plenty of other coverage where everyone pretends like obvious open secrets aren't true unless a peer-reviewed meta-analysis proves it. And even then we should still give them the benefit of the doubt because maybe this time it's different.
As an employer, I want education to be robust from the ground up, not turn uni into an attempt to bootcamp whatever is hot today.
I don't think a 4 year postsecondary education is enough time to make a developer that can hit the ground running. Not if it's 100% of class time on CS theory. Nor if it were 4 years of vocational training and labwork that leaned heavy into AI. Nor some mix. We train on the job heavily, it's just not possible to fit everything into the sausage grinder.
So why not throw in some mandatory non-major electives? Take the time to do stuff that frustrates people who want uni to be a certificate mill. I don't care if green employees are experts at the exact narrow set of tools I use. I want them to be good at learning, and to have gotten most of the standard CS topics out of the way.
>Twenty years ago my teachers were telling me not to use Wikipedia because you can't trust anything on the internet.
Still can't. "ChatGPT can make mistakes." People still trust it, doesn't mean they should. Wiki's not as bad of a tertiary source as it used to be, but it's still a tertiary source and you had a research assignment. Even official authoritative sources can be un/intentionally wrong.
> You should never date someone you met through an app or website because they are 100% murderers.
This remains sound advice that teachers should continue giving children. Even (or morso) now that online dating has been normalized in the meantime. Do I have to explain?
I don't spend much time interacting with zoomers, but I'm still surprised that "spicy $foo" sends fellow boomers through such a loop. I didn't have to puzzle it out, it was fun juxtaposition wordplay and when it's deployed well I still find it amusing.
I'm ribbing you for writing like a condescending guru that invalidates the evaluatory capability of your peers. Not the meat of your evaluation (not to say that it's any good either, just that it's irrelevant).
>before all the musings about painting by people who have never picked up a brush
I can't tell if this is a clever dig that comically undercuts the premise of the previous line, or it's an unaware unironic attempt to separate off a perceived un-serious type of poster.
Oh, hey, I recognize you. Thank you for the very forward and thorough orbital sander recommendation at Home Depot. That's exactly what I wanted to deal with on my holiday weekend. You just know so much about this and the rest of us are simple passersbys.
> This stuff is deeply dystopian and I struggle to believe good faith on the part of people selling this stuff.
I agree, but there's something I also kinda respect about saying the quiet part out loud.
Other AIs are executed just slyly enough for anyone with legitimate criticism to be given a hard time by a specious and silver-tongued communications departments, or a eager outside sycophant. Sure, $HEAD of $AI_VENTURE probably does has a genuine good faith idea or two about AI. They might not always be lying in the press. But the companies still act in dystopian bad faith.
I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.