malacola

This resonated with me - I’ve been avoiding things that affect my word choice since mobile messaging apps started introducing “next logical word choice” features for the exact reasons outlined here. If writing approximates thought, I don’t want some third party process constantly butting in and derailing that train, even if I’m just texting someone.

But as a thought experiment, replace “writing” in this article with “coding”, and ask yourself why the same points wouldn’t hold? Maybe it’s because I enjoyed writing essays in college, before I wrote software as a job, but I’ve never seen much difference between writing code and writing natural language. They’re both a means to an end, some lossy way of encoding thought. One is machine executable and one isn’t (arguable maybe, at this point) but I think they both suffer from the same pathologies outlined here when AI takes over, eg, “writing is thought”, “AI writing can be subtly wrong” etc.

Yet the preponderance of hot takes I see these days are along the lines of “code review is dead”, “writing code by hand is dead”. Perhaps people largely don’t see code as communication? It bothers me to imagine a world where the vast majority of textual communication produced becomes machine generated, whether that’s natural language or code.

Does anyone know if any of these respirators can be sized to fit a smaller than average 4-year-old?

If they start rolling through random neighborhoods and gassing people in their homes like they did in Minneapolis, I’d like to be prepared.

Gotten fooled by this at least twice now, beware - companies with these “roles” will take you through their entire 5 week interview funnel and drop you at the very last stage if you’re not 10x enough to be worth pulling head count out of thin air. What a waste of time.

Always try and find out if the role they’re hiring for is an actual role they have a vested interest in filling and not just a generic “statement of interest”.