9 ms·
Using a LLM to fix a spelling mistake is retardedly lazy. Presumably they used a free version of the LLM, therefore it is completely understandable that it ins
by daemin 6mo ago
Using a LLM to fix a spelling mistake is retardedly lazy.
Presumably they used a free version of the LLM, therefore it is completely understandable that it inserted a snippet of text advertising its use into the output. I mean using a free email provider also adds a line of text to the end of every email advertising the service by default - "Sent from iPhone" etc.
- LeoPanthera 6mo agoThis comment is shockingly ableist.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- onion2k 6mo agoUsing a LLM to fix a spelling mistake is retardedly lazy. If you do it manually, sure. If you have an agent watching for code changes and automatically opening PRs for small fixes that don't need a human-in-the-loop except for approving the change, it's the opposite of lazy. It eliminately all those tedious 1 point stories and let's the team focus on higher value work that actually needs a person to think about it. Given time all small changes will be done this way, and eventually there won't be a person reviewing them.
- pabrams 6mo agoThat scenario doesn't require any explicit "summoning", and if there's a human in the loop approving the change, certainly they can fix the typo themself.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- ex-aws-dude 6mo agoSounds like a great use of energy and tokens, not overkill at all In fact I don't even use Ctrl + F anymore and instead just use Claude for all my searches
- onion2k 6mo agoSounds like a great use of energy and tokens, not overkill at all As much as AI uses a lot of energy, having something that fixes issues in the background is very likely to be a net saving if you consider the number of users who fail to complete a task due to the bug and have to either wait in a broken state or retry later. It's probably using less energy than a person fixing the issue too. That's a guess though.
- hrmtst93837 6mo ago[flagged]