jj4211

There are pedestrian safety design points including pedestrian crumple and not having sharp edges.

Of course the goal is moot at 75 mph, but it does apply at speeds like 15 mph that might actually be survivable and isn't a crazy expectation in pedestrian heavy roads where the car might actually slow that much before impact.

So the cyber truck totally deserves criticism for discarding that in service of Elon's weird taste, but just a deer at 75 mph didn't illustrate it.

I was so happy when I ran out of tokens, I could just keep programming without management micromanaging how I got my job done.

The author seems to think this is some horribly intolerable scenario, impossible to keep going. That without tokens you can do nothing. Lamenting that it's impossible to understand the code the LLM put out. This is a bad sign. If you let the LLM get beyond your ability to reasonably understand and audit, then you run the risk of getting screwed at any moment. If I saw this perspective from anyone that did work for me, I told be avoiding letting them anywhere near anything potentially important.

Net this has been the worst thing to happen to the discipline of software development. Maybe after the bubble pops we can have the more reasonable takes, but right now it's just insufferable.

While the truck is certainly poorly designed for pedestrian safety, the truck hit the deer at 75 mph. There is no such thing as safe for pedestrians at that speed.

It's not the creators intent, is the closed captioner. The director does not play a role in what goes into the closed captions generally.

Yes, but those LLMs are not the official LLM of X directly tweeting on the platform publicly for all to see, attribute directly to the LLM instead of to whatever user induced the behavior.

Well a light refactor of deduplicating code would be a refinement that is generally easy to review and likely comfortably in the capability of the codegen.

Versus creating, which generally is harder to review and requires the submitter to explain the rationale behind the change.

Volume of code and nature of change.

Of that comes to pass, they can change it.

The codegen is a particularly big problem for famous open source projects. All of a sudden you have a flood of people trying to get their name on your project and flooding you with low quality stuff. Codegen enables folks without good ideas to generate submissions that demand a lot of review. Being about to shoot down obviously AI content without deeper review is pretty critical to keep the project viable. There may be good things tossed out with the bathwater, but it is a ton of bathwater. Besides, if there's something real behind it, a good human is likely to emerge to take it forward more credibly.

Closed source or personal projects can enjoy a bit more judgement. You can evaluate the people independent of the submissions and may be able to have an even more nuanced take.

It's not like it is a legally binding agreement that needs a high level of quality in adjucation. If things seem off then it can be cited and you don't have to prove it. Conversely, if something passes human review despite being codegen, well then I guess the codegen isn't that bad

I've seen a pull request that was ultimately nonsensical but plausible and short, and purported to be needed in a configuration none of the maintainers had access to. It was a pretty harmless change either way so they were inclined to accept it. But they sought a little clarification and the clearly LLM response in comment got it shut down. No human stepped up to actually explain an understanding and the LLM sounded like a TV show writer writing tech, sentences that sounded credible but to anyone with understanding was nonsensical bullshit.

LLM code can sometimes be hard to tell in a short code change, but the prose when things are anything vaguely needing explanation is just so very very obvious.

They can't count on a jury that hates insurance companies. You would be surprised how many folks might be neutral on it, and jury selection can spend as much time as they want trying to find those people. Last time I might have served the lawyers dismiaaed essentially the entire jury twice over before accepting and that was over some anonymous little civil suit.

With respect to the family man angle, well there's not much to be done on that front by the defense. "He was a dick who had it coming" isn't a legal defense and even if attempted, people would probably think it is a bad look to try to smear the reputation of a dead man.

On the Internet circle jerks, a folk hero getting off seems really neat and with enough celebration seems even probable. Reality is not so.

Just wish it cut both ways, that health care executives be more accountable for lives lost due to their misbehaviors.

Yeah, but you'll have to submit to every known provider and hope the user used one of the ones that provide this checking service, and didn't do something like ask a local model to just randomize synonyms in a text.

You still have choices.

Variable names are pretty free form.

A switch statement or if/else might be a choice that achieves the same thing. Waffling between them would be highly suspect, since a person isn't going to be so wishy washy. So you could use structural choices too.

AI code tends to look more obviously AI than prose anyway.

Well, they got the 1 off-site bit...