31–40 of 81 posts
Maybe it's just me but if I felt like my application's error messages weren't easy enough to understand I'd try to improve the messages instead of throwing all the context at an AI and hoping for the best.
The link could even be parameterized so the URLs or other elements related to the error replace placeholders in the doc. But I'm sure a developer is capable of enough abstraction to replace example data themselves.
Maybe it's just me but if I felt like my application's error messages weren't easy enough to understand I'd try to improve the messages instead of throwing all the context at an AI and hoping for the best.
Why does this exist? The example AI-generated explanation shown doesn't seem any more helpful than the original error. It just states the same information in a long-winded manner. Errors and warnings are already deterministic and unambiguous. Why introduce the opportunity to confuse people or just be plain wrong?
Maybe it's just me but if I felt like my application's error messages weren't easy enough to understand I'd try to improve the messages instead of throwing all the context at an AI and hoping for the best.
People have been trying to get compilers and runtimes to generate better errors for decades, and sites like StackOverflow exist to backfill the fact that this is a really hard problem. If an AI can get you a better explanation synchronously, doesn't that in fact represent an improvement in the "messages"?
I have read and re-read this article and I don’t understand how this is better for any purpose other than “we put AI in something, increase our stock price!”
Maybe it's just me but if I felt like my application's error messages weren't easy enough to understand I'd try to improve the messages instead of throwing all the context at an AI and hoping for the best.
Yep. The Web console could just link to some documentation. The link could even be parameterized so the URLs or other elements related to the error replace placeholders in the doc. But I'm sure a developer is capable of enough abstraction to replace example data themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been trying to get compilers and runtimes to generate better errors for decades, and sites like StackOverflow exist to backfill the fact that this is a really hard problem. If an AI can get you a better explanation synchronously, doesn't that in fact represent an improvement in the "messages"?
No because all the AI is doing is making up statistically plausible sounding nonsense? The best case output is a correct summary of the documentation page - why add a huge amount of power use alongside massive privacy invasion just to deal with that? I have read and re-read this article and I don’t understand how this is better for any purpose other than “we put AI in something, increase our stock price!”
I can't wait for end users to submit bug reports containing Geminis interpretation instead of the actual error message.
Oh Jesus... my boss has been known to open Devtools and give us suggestions about what's wrong with the layout/styles without understanding CSS. Now he has an AI to help hallucinate how he'd easily solve any problem.
Maybe it's just me but if I felt like my application's error messages weren't easy enough to understand I'd try to improve the messages instead of throwing all the context at an AI and hoping for the best.
But it can help us humans understand them better.