matsemann

You have multiple comments here in my thread where you wrongly describe how SO works. It's quite meaningless to discuss with you when you lie about points being awarded for stuff it was not etc.

What matters is however the active users answering questions.

Because the people providing the value here, those answering, saw them day after day. That the freeloaders didn't holds no weight.

Most of the badges was for reviewing, a "this question looks fine to me" gave the same progress as "close the question".

Why did it matter if the question you visited was closed as a duplicate? Still you would find your answer by following it. People wrongly think a duplicate was something wrong. They probably could've made it clearer.

Do you have a link?

It's only absurd if you think the question being closed as a duplicate was calling you out for doing something wrong. This was how it intentionally worked: group everything, and provide a canonical answer. Duplicates were good, the idea being that more ways to ask the same question could lead more people to find the answer. The other question just happened to have more people find it (hence more points), but someone finding yours could then be redirected to the more popular variation of the question.

> Also the policing of questions based on geeky criteria and not what users wanted.

This is wrong. People don't get that SO is moderated almost entirely by users. Users are those that down vote. Users are those who vote to close a question, and when a question reaches consensus it's closed. Users are those watching the review queue. Mods mainly did bigger stuff with additional tools.

So users wanted it how it was. And for good reason. If you actually participated on the site, like watching new questions arriving in a constant stream, it was obvious that most of it was low quality. People here will bemoan they got a question closed or no help, but that's to me mostly entitlement. The rules are clear, it was to create a Q&A site, not solve your specific question for free. To me that's not hostile.

They didn't claim they've read ai pharma textbooks, just used a pharma textbook (which I guess is heavy to read) as a comparison to being easier to read than ai written text.

Just skip the powerpoint if you can't be bothered to create it. It's painfully obvious for anyone listening that the presenter didn't come up with or think through what they're talking about.

Agreed. We're still bottlenecked when it comes to feature work because we need to think of the ideas, user test, talk with stakeholders etc. But somehow inventing loads of tasks to feel busy anyways. Those tasks are the side quests, things we normally wouldn't take on. It feels great to finally squash that bug or do that rewrite. But you're adding stuff onto everyone else's plate as well. Discussions, reviews etc, a constant barrage of new things to consider.

Not if you turn off your brain. Never actually stop to question the path you're going down, because the speed is making you blind. Which is what I feel I see more and more. Or how do you even know it's the wrong answer if you didn't think it through before starting?

One example: setting the agent ablaze on some task, keeping it going, and after a few days of working with the agent you have a feature. But it's not what you were supposed to make. The agent didn't have all the context and made something slightly off, and you never internalized the problem enough to even spot it. If you actually stopped to think a bit on how the feature would have to work to tie it in with everything else, like you would have done before, you would've spotted it.

Second example: something wasn't feasible to do before, due to not being worth the time investment. Like a feature that would need a bigger architectural change to implement. You and the agent take a crack at it, and rewrite huge parts of the code, and it seems to work. But now no one understands how, and it might have been the wrong way to solve it, you just went with it. Before, you would've sat down and discussed and thought about the architectural tradeoffs. Now one decision was just made with little thought.

Only because anthropic&co will price themselves just below the cap where people contemplated switching. In so, the Chinese models still set a sort of cap on the prices they can charge, even if not directly.

I think that's an orthogonal issue. A webpage can be crazy with loads of JS stuff, but still print nicely or behave well defined when it comes to semantics, screen readers etc.