4 ms·

Oh I'm right in the middle of your first point. I'm going to have on my grave stone: "Never underestimate the reputation and financial damage a competent but la

by hggigg 2y ago

Oh I'm right in the middle of your first point. I'm going to have on my grave stone: "Never underestimate the reputation and financial damage a competent but lazy software developer can do with an incompetent LLM" So what you're saying is that it's a good bullshit generator for marketing. That is fair :)

jamal-kumar 2y ago
It's really excellent for that. I can give it an image of a product I'm trying to sell, and then say 'describe this thing but use a ton of marketing fluff to increase engagement and conversions' and it does exactly that. There's tools out there to automatically do this with A/B testing and I think even stuff like shopify plugins, but I still do it relatively manually. I'll use it for code sparingly for stuff like data transformations (Take this ridiculously flat, two table database schema and normalize it to the third normal form) but for straight up generating code to be executed I'm way more careful to make sure it isn't giving me or the people who get to use that code garbage. It isn't that bad for basic security audits actually and I suggest any devs reading this re-run their code through it with security related prompting to see if they missed anything obvious. The huge problem is that at least half of devs with deadlines to meet are apparently not doing this, and I get to see it in the drop in quality of pull requests within the past 5 years.
- hggigg 2y ago
  I find it a distraction on validation tasks. I prefer to know what the hell I am doing first and be able to qualify that as I work with test cases. With respect to other engineers I haven't found any of our ML tools actually pick up anything useful yet from a code review. On engagement, I saw a negative recently where someone started replacing banner images for events with AI generated content and their conversion to tickets plummeted. YMMV. People can spot it a mile off and they are getting better at it. I think the end game is soon.
  - jamal-kumar 2y ago
    Were they trying to generate images for marketing creatives like that? People can notice what that looks like right away and it's repulsive for sure unless they can't tell. Text on the other hand is another story
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > On engagement, I saw a negative recently where someone started replacing banner images for events with AI generated content and their conversion to tickets plummeted. YMMV. People can spot it a mile off and they are getting better at it. Indeed. I like this stuff, I have fun with it, I have no problem with others making and sharing pics they like just as I myself do… but when I notice it in the wild on packaging or advertising, it always makes me wonder: what other corners are getting cut? (20 years ago, similar deal but with product art that had 3mm pixels and noticeable jpeg artefacts) > I think the end game is soon. Dunno. The models are getting better as well as the consumers noticing more — I've not seen Cronenberg fingers in a while now — and I don't know who will max out first, or when.

by hggigg 2y ago

jamal-kumar 2y ago

It's really excellent for that. I can give it an image of a product I'm trying to sell, and then say 'describe this thing but use a ton of marketing fluff to increase engagement and conversions' and it does exactly that. There's tools out there to automatically do this with A/B testing and I think even stuff like shopify plugins, but I still do it relatively manually. I'll use it for code sparingly for stuff like data transformations (Take this ridiculously flat, two table database schema and normalize it to the third normal form) but for straight up generating code to be executed I'm way more careful to make sure it isn't giving me or the people who get to use that code garbage. It isn't that bad for basic security audits actually and I suggest any devs reading this re-run their code through it with security related prompting to see if they missed anything obvious. The huge problem is that at least half of devs with deadlines to meet are apparently not doing this, and I get to see it in the drop in quality of pull requests within the past 5 years.

hggigg 2y ago
I find it a distraction on validation tasks. I prefer to know what the hell I am doing first and be able to qualify that as I work with test cases. With respect to other engineers I haven't found any of our ML tools actually pick up anything useful yet from a code review. On engagement, I saw a negative recently where someone started replacing banner images for events with AI generated content and their conversion to tickets plummeted. YMMV. People can spot it a mile off and they are getting better at it. I think the end game is soon.
- jamal-kumar 2y ago
  Were they trying to generate images for marketing creatives like that? People can notice what that looks like right away and it's repulsive for sure unless they can't tell. Text on the other hand is another story
- ben_w 2y ago
  > On engagement, I saw a negative recently where someone started replacing banner images for events with AI generated content and their conversion to tickets plummeted. YMMV. People can spot it a mile off and they are getting better at it. Indeed. I like this stuff, I have fun with it, I have no problem with others making and sharing pics they like just as I myself do… but when I notice it in the wild on packaging or advertising, it always makes me wonder: what other corners are getting cut? (20 years ago, similar deal but with product art that had 3mm pixels and noticeable jpeg artefacts) > I think the end game is soon. Dunno. The models are getting better as well as the consumers noticing more — I've not seen Cronenberg fingers in a while now — and I don't know who will max out first, or when.