3 ms·

> 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 sha

> 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.