3 ms·
That was my first take as well, but it can be easy to overlook this part of the original post: "I even insert a few bugs here and there to make it look like it’
by MrZongle2 9y ago
That was my first take as well, but it can be easy to overlook this part of the original post: "I even insert a few bugs here and there to make it look like it’s been generated by a human."
The fact that he is engaging in deception to make it look like he's still doing it manually rubs a lot of people, myself included, the wrong way. You could also argue that by introducing bugs, he's intentionally degrading the end product.
- CRConrad 9y ago<blockquote>You could also argue that by introducing bugs, he's intentionally degrading the end product.</blockquote> He is intentionally <em>not</em> degrading the end product: The bugs are inserted into the version he sends out as a draft, before sending out a "corrected" final one (i.e, presumably, the same output from his script, but before he put in the fake errors). Two observations: 1) Hm, here's hoping he always remembers to date the "final fixed" version later than the "original to-be-fixed" one. 2) What is it with you -- not just MrZongle2, but pretty much everybody commenting here -- does "RTFA" mean anything to you...?