Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…
My boss says it's because they are backed by trillion dollar companies and the companies would face dire legal threats if they did not ensure the correctness of AI output.
AI Usage Policy
111–120 of 293 posts
Re: AI Usage Policy
#112See x thread for rationale: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/2014433315261124760?s=46&t=FU... “ Ultimately, I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly.” I have a side project, git-prompt-story to attach Claude Vode session in GitHub git notes. Though it is not that simple to do automatic (e.g. i need to redact credentials).
>I want to see full session transcripts, but we don't have enough tool support for that broadly I think AI could help with that.
https://simonw.substack.com/p/a-new-way-to-extract-detailed-...
Re: AI Usage Policy
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said is wrong.
Consider: GP would've been much more correct if they said "It's just a person on a chip." Still wrong, but much less, in qualitative fashion, than they are now.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#114Re: AI Usage Policy
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
My boss says it's because they are backed by trillion dollar companies and the companies would face dire legal threats if they did not ensure the correctness of AI output.
Your boss sounds hilarious naive to how the world works.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#116TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results. Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in exp…
Re: AI Usage Policy
#117I really like the phrase "bad AI drivers"...AI is a tool, and the stupid drive-by pull requests just mean you're being inconsiderate and unhelpful in your usage of the tool, similar to how "bad drivers" are a nightmare to encounter on a highway...so stop it or you'll end up on the dashcam subreddit of programming.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your boss sounds hilarious naive to how the world works.
In a lot of ways he is, despite witnessing a lot of how the sausage is made directly. Honestly, I think at at least half of it is wanting to convince himself that the world still functions in ways that make sense to him rather than admit that it's mostly grifters grifting all the way down.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#119The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
"Other people" might also just be junior devs - I have seen time and again how (over-)confident newbies can be in their code. (I remember one case where a student suspected a bug in the JVM when some Java code of his caused an error.) It's not necessarily maliciousness or laziness, it could simply be enthusiasm paired with lack of experience.
I can't imagine the level of laziness or entitlement required for a student (or any developer) to blame their tools so quickly without conducting a thorough investigation.
Re: AI Usage Policy
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
My boss says it's because they are backed by trillion dollar companies and the companies would face dire legal threats if they did not ensure the correctness of AI output.
Your boss sounds hilarious naive to how the world works.
So their boss may be naive, but not hilariously so - because that is, in fact, how the world works[1]! And as a boss, they probably have some understanding of it.
The thing they miss is that AI fundamentally[2] cannot provide this kind of "correct" output, and more importantly, that the "trillion dollar companies" not only don't guarantee that, they actually explicitly inform everyone everywhere, including in the UI, that the output may be incorrect.
So it's mostly failure to pay attention and realize they're dealing with an exception to the rule.
--
[0] - Actually hurt you, I'm ignoring all the fitness/healthy eating fads and "ultraprocessed food" bullshit.
[1] - On a related note, it's also something security people often don't get: real world security relies on being connected - via contracts and laws and institutions - to "men with guns". It's not perfect, but scales better.
[2] - Because LLMs are not databases, but - to a first-order approximation - little people on a chip!