Dude, it’s ok to be wrong sometimes, no one would judge you :) In fact, it’s a sign of strength to be able to admit you’re wrong, and people will like you more for it. It’ll also be good for you personally as you will be more effective in more things :)

Maybe we just need to market it as the first step for viable railguns

Yeah making this into a man vs woman thing is stupid, I took the original post just as a person saying “people can have different kinds of intelligence, everything should be respected”

Why is it worth it to risk hallucinations when you can just get information from where the LLM gets its information from?

You have no idea what is actually true. All of what you said could later turn out to be false, once we learn more about the universe. So while this is a fun speculation based on current knowledge, it may effectively be completely useless in the future. And right now, it doesn’t even give any actionable arguments for anything.

Instead of letting the large language model think for you, I would suggest to try critical thinking for yourself. I sincerely mean this in a kind way, because if you continue with this, you may become a drone like the ones we talk about here, and I wish that on nobody. I know this current path is easier/more convenient, but sometimes one has to choose the harder path to arrive at a better result.

That’s what happens when you don’t actually understand the change and just listen to whoever is posting it. The disingenuous thing about LLMs is that they present their hallucinations with full confidence in a charismatic way. No matter the source, that is how anyone can mislead other humans, we’re just so extremely susceptible to it.

That’s what they’re saying:

When deployed, the soldier is launched into a designated hunt-zone. He navigates purely via visual landmarks. His brain constantly screens the nerve data from his eyes. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the organism locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely dependent on human input.

Katy, take your spork and get back into your own shower.

Having to make my bed has a negative effect on my mental health. But yes, that’s why I said to evaluate it individually.

That’s exactly why you should not blindly follow things though. There is literally no advantage to a nicely made bed except that it looks nice. If that is not worth the effort of making the bed, then why would you do it?

Ok, let me rephrase, “it’s quite obviously more profitable”

You’re right. It’s not about the code though, it’s about the interaction with the individual submitting the code. It is natural for humans to want to use language that is meant for communication between humans to actually reach humans.

That is just wrong though. There have been plenty of reputable studies with good methodology that do show differences between the sexes at certain tasks.

That does not mean that one or the other is better in general, it means women and men complement each other.

It also doesn’t mean that these innate advantages/disadvantages at certain tasks are significant enough so they are impossible to overcome, there are plenty of men good at communicating or whatever, even though women are generally slightly better at it, and so on.

I’m not talking about the work contributors do, obviously that is invaluable.

But if you do a review, and you see that a function should be extracted at one point to avoid code duplication, is it really faster to tell the contributor that a function needs to be extracted there, compared to just extracting it yourself as you see it?

The value of a review is collaborative truth finding and learning. If there is an LLM on the other end, that’s just not happening.

That is just mostly wrong. Around 90% of the time, when you do a review, just fixing the issue that you found is much faster than explaining the issue and saying what needs to be done instead.

Reviews plainly are for educating the contributor to what constitutes “non-shit”(using your terminology) code on the repo. If that wasn’t the case, you could just not do a review and just change the code, without any interaction at all. Why would you communicate the change that needs to be done otherwise?

Rarely of course, something is so complicated that it actually takes more time to come up with the right code than do a review. But that is only a rare thing.

It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.

Not YouTube, Soulseek. Nicotine frontend. Use a VPN.

Wait you’re telling me that women are better? So that differences between the sexes exist?

The inane thing is being able to skip semicolons. Exactly, why should anyone bother with that. We wouldn’t have this conversation. So yes, this is valid criticism of JavaScript, it’s not a very important one at all, but still.