bigstrat2003

> Who hasn't had a momentary lapse of reason, especially when sex is involved ?

A lot of people. Let's say that only half the people who have an affair admit it on polls like that. That still means that the majority of men and women are faithful to their spouses.

No it won't. At best, it can be on par with a human, but not better. A PR description isn't remotely hard to write.

I can't claim to be able to detect LLM writing with 100% accuracy, but when I do notice it, it's very off-putting. Some claim that's because it's bad writing and that I would be fine with a higher-quality generated text, but that isn't true. I dislike LLM writing purely because it's generated by a machine, not because it's bad (though the bad quality does make it more jarring). In my opinion, handing other people something that a machine generated for you and asking them to read it is extremely disrespectful. I want to read what the human wrote, imperfections and all, because humans have intrinsic value that makes their work matter to me. The product of a machine, on the other hand, is just a facsimile trying to appear like a human made it, and that holds no interest at all to me no matter how good the content would be were it man made.

I have yet to encounter the tech problem they can solve. LLMs really suck at troubleshooting, they love to go on esoteric tangents that are unlikely to succeed and then get hung up there.

> Ai genuinely is incredible. Think about it.

It is literally incredible, that is, the claims people make about it are not believable. It simply does not do the magical stuff people claim it does.

There is zero evidence whatsoever to suggest that will be the case. The only reason people say that is FOMO, not actual business sense.

Well, the current models haven't delivered any meaningful improvement over the previous models, so one would expect the new generation to be similarly unimpressive.

No, but humans are capable of learning and improving. LLMs are not. Humans also make mistakes at a much lower rate than LLMs do.

Not the same person, but I don't. I have noticed a slight improvement from GPT-3.5 until now, but not a marked improvement like people say. And I didn't notice any of the claimed massive improvements along the way either. Every model I use, even the very latest, is still fundamentally very stupid and cannot be trusted to do its own thing.

> This reads like a piece of content written a year ago. Things have radically changed since then.

We've been hearing this claim for years. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.

> In this case it accelerated piling up the tech debt.

So far, evidence is that's all it accelerates. We haven't seen any success stories where people make quality, maintainable software with LLMs at a rate any faster than humans would on their own.

> For many engineering jobs, P(AI mistake) is very low

Not remotely the case. LLMs make mistakes very frequently, much more frequently than humans do.

Yep, the site is overwhelmingly either news about AI, or someone's "look what I made with AI" posts, neither of which is interesting. I miss when people in the computer business actually enjoyed doing cool stuff with computers instead of making everything revolve around the slop machine.

Which is much to all of our detriment. Web apps can't hold a candle to native apps in the quality of the user experience they provide.

I think it's common enough for people to have regrets after the fact. Not all do, but enough that you can't rule it out entirely.

Promising if you're a fan of disaster movies and always wanted to experience one firsthand.

That may be so, but you can't control what mail service your recipients use. So whether or not it's a bad idea, it can be your problem. That said I don't agree with OP that self-hosting mail is a bad idea.

> But the fact of the matter is, if somebody else is getting paid based on your work, and you aren't being compensated your fair share, that's extractive and abusive.

That is not a fact at all. I choose to use permissive licenses because I am giving my work to the public out of charity. If someone uses it to turn a profit, and I never see a dime, I have not been exploited or abused in the least degree. It would certainly be virtuous for the people making a profit to give something back, but it isn't required. If I did require that, it wouldn't be much of a gift.

> they've just been left in the dust with their anti AI stance.

AI proponents always act like this is self-evidently a bad thing, but it isn't. When someone is going in the wrong direction, it is good for them to leave you behind. I believe that projects which embrace LLMs are going in a bad direction, and I'm glad to see more sensible maintainers get "left in the dust".

Nobody has ever said human code is perfect. But it is empirically the case that code written by LLMs is on average lower quality than code written by humans.

You seem to be implying that as long as someone understands you, that's good enough, but I don't really agree with that. Do people not wish to do a good job at things in their lives? I strive to use proper grammar and spelling, not because I can't communicate without them, but because anything worth doing is worth doing well. Why settle for half-assing one's way through life just because other people can understand if they put in enough effort?

> Yeah, it takes some extra ram. Fork my stuff and rewrite it in rust if you care. I don't.

And that, right there, is why people hate apps which use Electron. You are spending my system resources so that you can be lazy and not have to program as much. That's not really acceptable development practice.

> I don't think anyone likes the look of Qt more than what you can achieve with webapps in terms of UI

You are incorrect. In fact, us users hate that fact that UI designers keep making apps that look nothing like the rest of our system. Give me a nice native-looking app any day of the week.

No it isn't. It takes over 1 GB of memory just to open up a handful of source code files that each are under 1 MB in size (and which, for reference, Sublime can open with 300 MB used). It's an absolute pig.

> We can just admit that it was a good solution for the problems of its time just like JQuery.

We would be lying if we did that. Electron was never, ever a good solution. It was something solely used by devs who prioritized their own ease of work over the actual user experience, i.e. bad devs.

They do not, in fact, have to. They choose to. Don't ever let parties off the hook for choosing to do something just because they claim to fear PR blips if they don't.

You would lose that bet. I use a real computer (desktop or laptop) far more than I use my phone.

I think that Unicode should have been limited to only depicting existing writing systems. Anything else is imo out of scope for a text encoding format.

> it's uncanny that stochastic generation of language yields a form of recognizable intelligence.

It most certainly does not. It's obvious to anyone who critically examines LLMs, without letting the hype override sense, that there's zero intelligence there.

For one, people need to feel like they have something meaningful to contribute. Work is an important part of that. For two, people need to be able to make a living, and work is an important part of that.

It's all well and good to say that people shouldn't have to do menial labor. But unless you have something to fill the void, it's going to be a bad time for everyone involved.