21–30 of 67 posts
Edit: OP confirms there's no AI-generated code, so do ignore me. The code style - and in particular the *comments - indicate most of the code was written by AI. My apologies if you are not trying to hide this fact, but it seems like common decency to label that you're heavily using AI? *Comments like this: "# Anonymous function"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "pipe" is simply a composition of functions. Tidyverse adds a different syntax for doing function composition, using the pipe operator, which I don't particularly like. My general objection to Tidyverse is that it tries to reinvent everything but the end result is a language that is less practical and less transparent than standard R.
Can you rewrite some of those snippets in standard R w/o Tidyverse? Curious what it would look like
set.seed(10)
n Edit: OP confirms there's no AI-generated code, so do ignore me. The code style - and in particular the *comments - indicate most of the code was written by AI. My apologies if you are not trying to hide this fact, but it seems like common decency to label that you're heavily using AI? *Comments like this: "# Anonymous function"
Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?
Edit: OP confirms there's no AI-generated code, so do ignore me. The code style - and in particular the *comments - indicate most of the code was written by AI. My apologies if you are not trying to hide this fact, but it seems like common decency to label that you're heavily using AI? *Comments like this: "# Anonymous function"
Interesting comment. Why is it common decency to call out how much ai was used for generating an artifact? Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? The tidyverse is so readable, elegant, compositional, functional and declarative. It allows me to produce a lot more and higher quality than I could without it. ggplot2 is the best visualization software hands down, and dplyr leverages Unix’s famous point free programming style (that reduces the surface area for errors).
I disagree. In this example tidyverse looks convoluted compared to just using an array and apply. ggplot2 is okay but we already had lattice. Lattice does everything ggplot2 does and produces much better-looking plots IMO.
Lattice is really low-level. It's like doing vis with matplotlib (requires a lot of time and hair-pulling). Higher level interfaces boost productivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting comment. Why is it common decency to call out how much ai was used for generating an artifact? Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?
The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting comment. Why is it common decency to call out how much ai was used for generating an artifact? Is there a threshold? I assume spell checkers, linters and formatters are fair game. The other extreme is full-on ai slop. Where do we as a society should start to feel the need to police this (better)?
The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.
Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article:
> I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable.
Doesn't come out the gate and say who wrote the comments but ostensibly OP is a new grad / junior, the commenting style is on-brand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.
Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :) Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article: > I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable. Doesn't come out the gate and s…
I use Rmarkdown, so the code that's presented is also the same code that 'generates' the data/tables/graphs (source: https://github.com/gregfoletta/articles.foletta.org/blob/pro...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The threshold should be exactly the same as when using another human's original text (or code) in your article. AI cannot have copyright, but for full disclosure one should act as if they did. Anything that's merely something that a human editor (or code reviewer) would do is fair game IMO.
Maybe OP just used an ai editor to add their silly comments, so that would be fair game I guess? Or some humans just add silly comments. The article didn't stand out to me as emberrassingly ai-written. Not an em dash in sight :) Edit: just found this disclaimer in the article: > I’ll show the generating R code, with a liberal sprinking of comments so it’s hopefully not too inscrutable. Doesn't come out the gate and s…
I had read that line before I commented, it was partly what sparked me to comment as it was a clear place for a disclaimer.