91–100 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
That's very elitist and unfair to people who previously struggled to form their words but now have a better chance at doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a huge difference between using an llm and just blindly dumping it's output on someone verbatim. I think it's fine to have an llm write a first or second draft of something, then go through and reword most of it to be in your own voice.
The LLM presents a perverse incentive here - It is used for perceived efficiency gains, most of which would be consumed by the act of rewriting and redrafting. The alienness of the thoughts in the document is also non-condusive to this; Reading a long document about something you think you know but did not write is exhausting and mentally painful - This is why code review has such relatively poor results. Quite frank…
It might give efficiency gains for the writer, but the reader has to read the slop and try to guess at what it was intending to communicate and weed out "hallucinations". That's a big loss of efficiency for the reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
> If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them. Apply this argument to code, to art, to law, to medicine. It fails spectacularly. Blaming the tool for the failure of the person is how you get outrageous arguments that photography cant be art, that use of photoshop makes it not art... Do you blame the hammer or the nail gun when the house falls down, or is i…
Presenting synthesized words as original thought isn't using a tool, it's laziness at best.
Still wishing for the day apple is split into the hardware and the software company. I want their silicon, but I will never use their (arguably terrible) operating system. If I can't run my own kernel and kernel modules then it's a device that I don't own. Firmware is alright in some cases, but my laptop next to me is running core boot just to prove a point.
(arguably terrible) operating system macOS has made some arguably poor design choices, but it makes it hard to take someone seriously when they state the whole OS is terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(arguably terrible) operating system macOS has made some arguably poor design choices, but it makes it hard to take someone seriously when they state the whole OS is terrible.
It could be just me, but every time I tried to do something I sat thinking that I am not the target audience for this thing. I don't like the UI, I hate not being able to talk to the hardware the way I can on linux (uart took me way too long to get working), I am angry that I am not able to run kvm, I hate not being able to replace the desktop and fix bugs myself. That's what makes it terrible for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
There is a huge difference between using an llm and just blindly dumping it's output on someone verbatim. I think it's fine to have an llm write a first or second draft of something, then go through and reword most of it to be in your own voice.
The purpose of written language is to express your thoughts or ideas to others. If you're synthesizing text and then refining it you're not engaging in that practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
Using LLM is perfect for writing documentation which is something I always had problems with it.
Plus, when someone wrote the documentation, I can ask the author about details and they'll probably know since they had enough domain expertise and knowledge of the code to explain anything that might be missing. I can't trust you to know anything about the code you had an AI generate and then had an AI write documentation for.
Then there's the accuracy issue. Any documentation can always be inaccurate and it can obviously get outdated with time, but at least with human-authored documentation, I can be confident that the content at some point matched a person's best understanding of the topic. With AI, no understanding is involved; it's just probabilistically generated text, we've all hopefully seen LLMs generate plausible-sounding but completely wrong text enough to somewhat doubt their output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
Using LLM is perfect for writing documentation which is something I always had problems with it.
I have done a lot of technical writing in my career, and documenting things is exactly where you run into the worst design problems before they go live.
Papercuts like this are why I moved away from macOS. I will say, I don't love the use of LLMs to write these bug reports. It's probably fine if reviewed, but at least review for things like "worked on macOS 25", which obviously didn't exist. If that wasn't caught, how sure are you that the rest of the report is accurate? We all want the bugs fixed, but people are going to start throwing out the obviously LLM written…
It's been this way for decades. Microsoft was known for preserving backwards compatibility, while Apple was known for being willing to break stuff.
The differences aren't that extreme in reality: Microsoft breaks stuff more than it used to, while Apple has become comparatively more conservative than once upon a time.
There's a game I play (Old School Runescape) that does network ticks every .6s. Mac does some sort of aggressive optimization on the network hardware/software, so network this infrequent doesn't keep the layers "hot", and you end up getting delayed ticks regularly, meaning you learn what should be happening in the game .2-.5s late. This optimization for (I assume) battery life makes the software not work as intended.
Playing anything that streams, like video, or triggering TCP connections (e.g. curl) at a more frequent clip while the game is running fixes the problem.
No way other than hacks that I've found to fix it, and I have no idea how you could report this to the right team at Apple to get it actually fixed.