61–70 of 72 posts
This sure looks similar to something I posted on X 2 weeks ago: https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/misc_coding_agent_tips_... You be the judge: https://x.com/doodlestein/status/2002423770259345451?s=46
Wow this readme reads so similar it rather unlikely a coincidence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow this readme reads so similar it rather unlikely a coincidence?
Yeah, I was being polite. This is outright plagiarism. @dang
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's now a class of programmers who are very anti AI when it comes to coding because they think anybody who relies on it are degenerate vibe coders who have no idea what they are doing. You can see this in pretty much every single HN post w.r.t AI and coding.
There is indeed a class of programmers who think AI over-reliance will make us worse. And there should be, because it's true. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4812513
The first one has four important phrases: “negative correlation,” “mediated by increased cognitive offloading,” “higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage,” and “potential costs.”
The second paper has two: “students using GenAI tools score on average 6.71 (out of 100) points lower than non-users,” and “suggesting an effect whereby GenAI tool usage hinders learning.”
I ask you, sir, where exactly do you get “AI over-reliance will make us worse…because it’s true” from TWO studies that go out of their way to make it clear there is no causative link, only correlation, point out significant mediations of the effect, identify only potentiality, and also show only half a letter grade difference, which when you’re dealing with students could be down to all sorts of things. Not to mention we’re dealing with one preprint and some truly confounding study design.
If you don’t understand research methods, please stop presenting papers as if they are empirical authorities on truth.
It diminishes trust in real academic work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I was being polite. This is outright plagiarism. @dang
"License: This repository contains documentation and configuration files. Use freely for personal or commercial projects."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"License: This repository contains documentation and configuration files. Use freely for personal or commercial projects."
You really think that's the same as someone blatantly plagiarizing the work and passing it off as their own? Give me a break. This is dishonest and odious.
This sure looks similar to something I posted on X 2 weeks ago: https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/misc_coding_agent_tips_... You be the judge: https://x.com/doodlestein/status/2002423770259345451?s=46
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"License: This repository contains documentation and configuration files. Use freely for personal or commercial projects."
You really think that's the same as someone blatantly plagiarizing the work and passing it off as their own? Give me a break. This is dishonest and odious.
This sure looks similar to something I posted on X 2 weeks ago: https://github.com/Dicklesworthstone/misc_coding_agent_tips_... You be the judge: https://x.com/doodlestein/status/2002423770259345451?s=46
You wrote a markdown file. Shut up.
My analysis: https://x.com/theo/status/2006474140082122755