5 ms·

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect AI to produce systems with issues "pretty common even in designed systems without AI" because that's what AI was traine

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect AI to produce systems with issues "pretty common even in designed systems without AI" because that's what AI was trained on.

JohnMakin 1y ago
But that isn’t the expectation or what is being marketed
- brookst 1y ago
  Being marketed by who? Be specific.
  - ofjcihen 1y ago
    “Be specific.” Am I the only one that feels like it’s really condescending when people say this on the internet? It sounds like something you would see on a community college writing assignment
    - ungreased0675 1y ago
      It does sound condescending. I think the sentiment is important though. Asking someone to be specific can help them think clearly. What’s a nicer way to do that?
      - JoshuaDavid 1y ago
        I think "Who, specifically, claims that [...]?" comes off as less condescending than "Who claims that [...]? Be specific." just by virtue of the latter using imperative language, which triggers a reflexive "you're not the boss of me" reaction.
        john01dav 1y ago
        The message is clear in both cases. It's easier to put aside these irrational reflexive reactions and think about whatever worth can be derived from the message than it is to carefully manage the emotions of varied readers whom you don't know. This is different from bring overtly inflammatory, although the lines for this are subjective.
        JoshuaDavid 1y ago
        Ultimately it's probably not a productive use of time to be commenting here at all from a strict EV perspective. Meaning that if you're posting here, you're probably getting something else out of it. The value of that "something else" determines how you should approach the problem of managing the gut reactions of your readers. If someone asks for a better way to word something to reduce reader hostility to their point, I assume that they will be better off for knowing the answer to that question, and can decide for themselves whether they want to change their writing style or not - and, whether they do or do not, the effects of their writing will be more intentional.
        comfysocks 1y ago
        In the two cases, the meaning of the message may be the same, but the tone of the message is different. One tone invites further engagement, the other invites disengagement.
  - bombcar 1y ago
    By Brian Sheltzer, 302 Main St, Chicago, Illinois.
  - degamad 1y ago
    Dario Amodei: https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/work-productivity/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-says-ai-will-write-90-percent-of-code-in-6-months https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/work-productivi...
  - throwanem 1y ago
    'By whom.'
- edoceo 1y ago
  I expect these AI and LLM to be, basically, a middle of the bell-curve type producer of code. Just like their other output. Not terrible, not exceptional, just what a Mid could do - only faster. Not sure what's being marketed, but I expect mediocre.

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect AI to produce systems with issues "pretty common even in designed systems without AI" because that's what AI was trained on.

JohnMakin 1y ago

But that isn’t the expectation or what is being marketed

brookst 1y ago
Being marketed by who? Be specific.
- ofjcihen 1y ago
  “Be specific.” Am I the only one that feels like it’s really condescending when people say this on the internet? It sounds like something you would see on a community college writing assignment
  - ungreased0675 1y ago
    It does sound condescending. I think the sentiment is important though. Asking someone to be specific can help them think clearly. What’s a nicer way to do that?
    - JoshuaDavid 1y ago
      I think "Who, specifically, claims that [...]?" comes off as less condescending than "Who claims that [...]? Be specific." just by virtue of the latter using imperative language, which triggers a reflexive "you're not the boss of me" reaction.
      - john01dav 1y ago
        The message is clear in both cases. It's easier to put aside these irrational reflexive reactions and think about whatever worth can be derived from the message than it is to carefully manage the emotions of varied readers whom you don't know. This is different from bring overtly inflammatory, although the lines for this are subjective.
        JoshuaDavid 1y ago
        Ultimately it's probably not a productive use of time to be commenting here at all from a strict EV perspective. Meaning that if you're posting here, you're probably getting something else out of it. The value of that "something else" determines how you should approach the problem of managing the gut reactions of your readers. If someone asks for a better way to word something to reduce reader hostility to their point, I assume that they will be better off for knowing the answer to that question, and can decide for themselves whether they want to change their writing style or not - and, whether they do or do not, the effects of their writing will be more intentional.
        comfysocks 1y ago
        In the two cases, the meaning of the message may be the same, but the tone of the message is different. One tone invites further engagement, the other invites disengagement.
- bombcar 1y ago
  By Brian Sheltzer, 302 Main St, Chicago, Illinois.
- degamad 1y ago
  Dario Amodei: https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/work-productivity/anthropic-ceo-dario-amodei-says-ai-will-write-90-percent-of-code-in-6-months https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/work-productivi...
- throwanem 1y ago
  'By whom.'
edoceo 1y ago
I expect these AI and LLM to be, basically, a middle of the bell-curve type producer of code. Just like their other output. Not terrible, not exceptional, just what a Mid could do - only faster. Not sure what's being marketed, but I expect mediocre.