11–14 of 14 posts
> No frustration. No judgment. Just iteration. [citation needed] This entire article is just meaningless vibes of one guy who sells AI stuff.
Also, what are the "rule of three" and constructions of the form "no X, no Y, just Z" indicative of? Bruh either had help, or he's the most trite writer ever.
While my initial reaction was dystopian horror that we're losing our humanity, I feel slightly different after sitting with it for a while.
Ask yourself, how effective was all that effort really? Did any humans actually read and internalize what was written? Or did it just rot in the company wiki? Were we actually communicating effectively with our peers, or just spending lots of time on trying to? Let's not retcon our way to believing the pre-AI days were golden. So much tribal knowledge has been lost, NOT because no one documented it but because no one bothered to read it. Now at least the AI reads it.
The AI doesn't judge, it doesn't have ego, and generally, if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context). So in a sense, we are more forgiving of ourselves more than anything.
Sounds a lot like the understanding we should have with each other.
The AI doesn't judge, it doesn't have ego, and generally, if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context). So in a sense, we are more forgiving of ourselves more than anything.
> if it does poorly, it's more a reflection of the user providing the inputs (giving bad instructions or not enough context). Sounds a lot like the understanding we should have with each other.