every ai guy says "i carefully reviewed everything!" but then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
-
every pro ai discourse relies on the idea that u will never actually go and look at the results yourself and see that they're shit
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
-
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
it's industrial scale gish gallop
-
@shuppy @jacqueline it's the reason why all this is temporary.
but it really makes you doubt yourself. strangely.
(i just hope we don't take from this that we should never doubt ourselves, like the G.I. generation in the 70's who sent boomers to hell to "teach them a lesson")
-
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
@jacqueline I want them to feel bad
-
every ai guy says "u can't argue the quality; new models actually are genuinely good" and then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline should have said impressive, they are genuinely impressive. in their way. https://social.treehouse.systems/@dysfun/116669622500374568
-
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
-
@rancoisse idk he seems satisfied with the arrangement
-
every ai guy says "u can't argue the quality; new models actually are genuinely good" and then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline definition of good skewed by continious brainrot
-
every ai guy says "i carefully reviewed everything!" but then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline Because by "I" they mean "the LLM," and by "carefully reviewed everything" they mean "processed the code as an input and produced an output that reinforced my assumption for how everything inside the impenetrable and unobservable black box is working."
-
@jacqueline Because by "I" they mean "the LLM," and by "carefully reviewed everything" they mean "processed the code as an input and produced an output that reinforced my assumption for how everything inside the impenetrable and unobservable black box is working."
@StarkRG well u see i opened the diff up in the github pr viewer, and i scrolled through it slowly, and i read most of it. and it looked fine to me. and i consider myself a pretty thorough reviewer. so yeah, i reviewed it thoroughly.
-
every ai guy says "i carefully reviewed everything!" but then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline Ass Input, Shit Output -
@jacqueline Ass Input, Shit Output
@lanodan @jacqueline poop from the butt
-
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
@jacqueline I've been thinking about that "feeling good" part a lot lately...
I wonder if folks like it because it makes everyone feel like a middle-manager managing an engineering team.
Like you go from grinding out code yourself to spelling out high-level design decisions and constraints for your "team" to work on and then kinda sit back and supervise their work.Maybe makes you feel more important/powerful/valuable than before. So every attack against the premise of agentic LLM development becomes a personal threat to your imagined new position and status?
-
every ai booster's argument is "this slot machine that kills the world makes me feel good, so if u make me feel bad about it u must be wrong"
@jacqueline I truly, deeply wonder what is wrong with me that it doesn't make me feel good. Ever.
-
every ai guy says "u can't argue the quality; new models actually are genuinely good" and then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline All the extra unicode characters, bogus variables that never do anything, and strange extra packages it seems to really enjoy...
make it faster?
Make bigger numbers so execs think it's cool?!
️ -
every ai guy says "u can't argue the quality; new models actually are genuinely good" and then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline if you go to the trouble of reading the code you can improve it easily especially if it is dog crap, more power to you
-
every ai guy says "i carefully reviewed everything!" but then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline I (claude) carefully («make no mistakes») reviewed (generated some report) everything (what could fit in context window)
-
@jacqueline I've been thinking about that "feeling good" part a lot lately...
I wonder if folks like it because it makes everyone feel like a middle-manager managing an engineering team.
Like you go from grinding out code yourself to spelling out high-level design decisions and constraints for your "team" to work on and then kinda sit back and supervise their work.Maybe makes you feel more important/powerful/valuable than before. So every attack against the premise of agentic LLM development becomes a personal threat to your imagined new position and status?
@wall_e @jacqueline
Engineering team --> servitude. I think the feeling into GenIA is the feeling of managing servitude -
every ai guy says "i carefully reviewed everything!" but then u actually read the code and it's dogshit
@jacqueline "I even added tests (gen by ai ofc), so that proves code does what's intended!"
