The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#2> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing.
I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#3[deleted]
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#4> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
Better get used to it, the art of writing without AI assistance is dead. You will occasionally find some of it like a truffle in the woods, but that was it. And even if the next generation will attempt stringing a few sentences together by hand it will sound like AI, because they grew up spending more time talking to AI than anyone else.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#5> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
> This is what fifteen years of standards work on a five-letter keyword ['volatile'] looks like.
How many letters are in the word 'volatile' ?
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#6> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
Better get used to it, the art of writing without AI assistance is dead. You will occasionally find some of it like a truffle in the woods, but that was it. And even if the next generation will attempt stringing a few sentences together by hand it will sound like AI, because they grew up spending more time talking to AI than anyone else.
I attend a local writer’s group in my area, where people write in person within a time limit. The art of writing without AI assistance still lives, but it’s not online and probably not discussing the C++ standard library.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#7> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
Better get used to it, the art of writing without AI assistance is dead. You will occasionally find some of it like a truffle in the woods, but that was it. And even if the next generation will attempt stringing a few sentences together by hand it will sound like AI, because they grew up spending more time talking to AI than anyone else.
this kind of overt inevitabilism is complicity in the death of good writing.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#8> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
> This is what fifteen years of standards work on a five-letter keyword ['volatile'] looks like. How many letters are in the word 'volatile' ?
Woof. Didn't even bother to proofread the AI slop. Wow.
I think we need a "Flag AI Slop" button.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#9I left C++ almost 10 years ago but I still remember how surprised and frustrated I was when auto_ptr was deprecated and then removed from the C++ standard as we had built our dependency injection framework and progress primitive on it.
Re: The C++ Standard Library Has Been Walking Itself Back for Fifteen Years
#10> Every entry below points at a real paper that the working group adopted. None of these are arguments. They are admissions in writing. I smell AI. If you don't write it, I don't read it.
Better get used to it, the art of writing without AI assistance is dead. You will occasionally find some of it like a truffle in the woods, but that was it. And even if the next generation will attempt stringing a few sentences together by hand it will sound like AI, because they grew up spending more time talking to AI than anyone else.
If I want to read a LLM's "opinion" on some subject I just prompt it myself. Inserting humans as intermediaries that pretend they wrote something is dishonest at best. Future generations will hopefully see through that and stop sign generated texts with fake human names.