3 ms·

A"I" vomit then? And how would that hurt the argument? It's not royalty where being offended in combination with power could be brought to bear. If you replace

A"I" vomit then? And how would that hurt the argument? It's not royalty where being offended in combination with power could be brought to bear. If you replace "AI vomit" with "the product of these fascinating achievements of the human mind and persistent experimentation" in a sentence, it chances not thing important about rest of the sentence.

verdverm 3y ago
"vomit" is the problematic word in the context. The comment author puts their bias on display. Why should I take any arguments from an author seriously when they layer their bias on? They could have replaced "vomit" with "output" and have had a better statement This is besides the fact that they claimed I was referring only to AI output as what I mean by code gen, when I clearly listed many types of code gen. Again, they demonstrate bias and poor argumentation skills.
- VyseofArcadia 3y ago
  I said vomit and I meant vomit. I have an opinion about this, and I intended to convey that opinion. I'm not trying to avoid the appearance of bias.
  - verdverm 3y ago
    ummm, where did you say "vomit" before this most recent comment? You've only contributed the top-level comment in this branch of the thread
    - VyseofArcadia 3y ago
      > AI generated code vomit needs to be called something else. From the top level comment.
      - verdverm 3y ago
        Off-by-one error for me, my bad My reply about vomit applies to you then too, showing bias always weakens your argument
        johnnyworker 3y ago
        "2 + 2 equals four" "If you add one fucking two to another two, you get the disgusting but still correct result of four" It may weaken your ability to follow the argument, but not the argument itself. It does not weaken mine so maybe you're holding it wrong.
        verdverm 3y ago
        I think you have something backwards in your logic gates, you do not get to decide if your argument is weak or strong I am now sure you're holding it wrong, you're trying to make an analogy that does not work. In the first case, an opinion is made about the quality of LLM output. Here, you are stating a mathematical fact two ways. There is nothing to debate about 2+2 being 4
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > Why should I take any arguments from an author seriously when they layer their bias on? Because they're not referring to private experiences, but the the shared world. It's kind of rich to talk about "argumentation skills" while talking your personal need of taking arguments from "an author" seriously or not. Who cares? Then don't take them seriously, takes nothing away from them. > I clearly listed many types of code gen "Codegen is best for augmenting your design to development process, not automating it.", "AI-based code generation (codegen", "Instead of thinking about codegen as a replacement for a developer", "codegen can speed up your handoff workflow by making suggestions" And so on. All throughout the article you use that word to mean one thing and one thing only. Or put differently, "Why should I take the arguments of someone seriously who doesn't know even know the article they wrote?"
  - verdverm 3y ago
    > All throughout the article you use that word to mean one thing and one thing only. What are you on about? I did not write the article I was referring to my own comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692519, to which the reply with "vomit" misrepresented what I had written Maybe try not attacking people when you are going to make basic mistakes
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      My bad. > That's exactly the problem - codegen means a lot of things. You just talk about codegen and expect people to understand that you mean the AI vomit. I took the "you" as more general here. It's not your comment (that came afterwards) mentioning codegen that is under discussion, but the article, and it it uses it that word exactly that way, and only that way.

verdverm 3y ago

"vomit" is the problematic word in the context. The comment author puts their bias on display. Why should I take any arguments from an author seriously when they layer their bias on? They could have replaced "vomit" with "output" and have had a better statement This is besides the fact that they claimed I was referring only to AI output as what I mean by code gen, when I clearly listed many types of code gen. Again, they demonstrate bias and poor argumentation skills.

VyseofArcadia 3y ago
I said vomit and I meant vomit. I have an opinion about this, and I intended to convey that opinion. I'm not trying to avoid the appearance of bias.
- verdverm 3y ago
  ummm, where did you say "vomit" before this most recent comment? You've only contributed the top-level comment in this branch of the thread
  - VyseofArcadia 3y ago
    > AI generated code vomit needs to be called something else. From the top level comment.
    - verdverm 3y ago
      Off-by-one error for me, my bad My reply about vomit applies to you then too, showing bias always weakens your argument
      - johnnyworker 3y ago
        "2 + 2 equals four" "If you add one fucking two to another two, you get the disgusting but still correct result of four" It may weaken your ability to follow the argument, but not the argument itself. It does not weaken mine so maybe you're holding it wrong.
        verdverm 3y ago
        I think you have something backwards in your logic gates, you do not get to decide if your argument is weak or strong I am now sure you're holding it wrong, you're trying to make an analogy that does not work. In the first case, an opinion is made about the quality of LLM output. Here, you are stating a mathematical fact two ways. There is nothing to debate about 2+2 being 4
johnnyworker 3y ago
> Why should I take any arguments from an author seriously when they layer their bias on? Because they're not referring to private experiences, but the the shared world. It's kind of rich to talk about "argumentation skills" while talking your personal need of taking arguments from "an author" seriously or not. Who cares? Then don't take them seriously, takes nothing away from them. > I clearly listed many types of code gen "Codegen is best for augmenting your design to development process, not automating it.", "AI-based code generation (codegen", "Instead of thinking about codegen as a replacement for a developer", "codegen can speed up your handoff workflow by making suggestions" And so on. All throughout the article you use that word to mean one thing and one thing only. Or put differently, "Why should I take the arguments of someone seriously who doesn't know even know the article they wrote?"
- verdverm 3y ago
  > All throughout the article you use that word to mean one thing and one thing only. What are you on about? I did not write the article I was referring to my own comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37692519, to which the reply with "vomit" misrepresented what I had written Maybe try not attacking people when you are going to make basic mistakes
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    My bad. > That's exactly the problem - codegen means a lot of things. You just talk about codegen and expect people to understand that you mean the AI vomit. I took the "you" as more general here. It's not your comment (that came afterwards) mentioning codegen that is under discussion, but the article, and it it uses it that word exactly that way, and only that way.