A funny thing I noticed when googling whether melamine was microwave-safe: I got a lot of clickbaity articles from sketchy sites. Some said melamine is microwav

A funny thing I noticed when googling whether melamine was microwave-safe: I got a lot of clickbaity articles from sketchy sites. Some said melamine is microwave safe, some said it is not, and some seemed to contradict each other. An Asimov story called "Liar!" concerns a robot which has the ability to read minds. When asked to tell what's going on in another person's mind (does so-and-so have a crush on me? is my boss planning to give me a promotion?) the robot, following its First Law directive not to allow humans to come to harm (including emotional harm), tells the querent what they would like to hear based on the robot's reading of the querent's mind, instead of the truth because the truth can hurt. When the robot is shown that its actions hurt humans anyway, it promptly shuts down and refuses to function. These language models seem like that robot. The articles on melamine suggest to me that the AIs which generated them are producing output that their statistical models suggest the querent wants to hear, rather than output with correct answers. In light of this, it seems that using these models for assistance in coding would be like having an obsequious but shitty coworker, whose output you must carefully review and vet because even money it's not a solution to your problem, just a guess at what you want to see based on a vast statistical soup built up of thousands of programmers' efforts on millions of tasks. Which means any effort you saved up now will be paid for with extra effort later, as every programmer knows it's much easier and more fun to wrote new code than to review and debug someone else's code, especially if it's shitty, especially^2 if it's subtly shitty. It really is like Teitelman's DWIM evolved, with correspondingly magnified lossage in its failure modes!