3 ms·
A better question is why anyone should bother to take their time to read something that's not worth yours to write. This goes for most of AI output, honestly.
by abenga 11mo ago
A better question is why anyone should bother to take their time to read something that's not worth yours to write. This goes for most of AI output, honestly.
- Spivak 11mo agoSee this has become a popular quip when talking about AI but it doesn't make any sense. Autogenerated API references are worth their weight in gold despite not being written by a human. Live captioning and transcription in Teams/Zoom is really useful when you you miss something and need to go back. Machine translations, as flawed as they might be, are a godsend despite not being written by a human translator. You can apply this logic to procedurally generated games like No Man's Sky. Why would you want to play a level that a human didn't even bother to design?
- abenga 11mo agoYou are selecting the subset of AI that generally makes sense and is useful. A lot of the things you mention (captioning, autogenerating APIs from code, etc) were solved problems, even before generative AI.
- Spivak 11mo agoAnd they might not even be implemented with AI, they were all examples times when you read something no human bothered to write. And I'm expecting the retort will be something to the effect of well they're just translating some source material written/spoken by a human but that's what's happening here with commit messages (and MR descriptions). I'm not sure I would go whole-hog and let this tool rewrite my history but my `git commit -v` wraper pre-populates the commit message with something AI generated based on the diff and I've been quite happy with the results. I think my commit messages are much better as a result.