oogali

What AI has largely changed is how the communication barrier (or perception thereof) is dealt with between two sides: one which consists of those who perceive gatekeeping or attribute their lack of substantive progress to it, and the other side which consists of the time, resources, and skills the former feels entitled to or indebted towards.

I’ve had a running theory for a few years now that some tech folks are more open to receiving an error message from a compiler or other tool, than they are to critical feedback from a peer. If they’re blocked and finally have exhausted their other avenues (pre-LLM: web searches, forums, etc), they’ll reluctantly engage with a peer, and do so with extremely limited patience.

The first paragraph of this reply is extending that theory to non-tech —-> tech, but replace compilers with LLMs that _appear_ to be more useful (or at least busy) working with what limited context you provide them, especially when it’s insufficient.

It won’t quite tell you your app idea is unrealistic or that the implementation is nearly impossible, but after burning a bunch of time and tokens, those people will eventually get the point.

Or reluctantly reach out to a tech person anyway.

Bright lighting is typically an artifact of the commercial property insurance policy in effect (namely, "Protective Safeguards"). It's asking you to demonstrate that you've done enough to create a barrier towards theft/loss.

It doesn't have to be really bright lighting but that's the easiest thing to satisfy the underwriter's request, and as a result, the cheapest to implement.

While I don’t disagree, this is an article written by an Australian doctor.

That’s a scary thought (at least, to me). But all change is scary.

The thought is a new wave of people who only know LLM-generated sites, so those design patterns are what they demand/emulate/etc. across the spectrum of user interfaces.

The only previous trend I can draw a parallel to was when Comic Sans and Microsoft Clip Art dominated every flyer and poster.

Can you share which model and harness created this situation?

I remember this “time” in my US classroom where we were all punished with if one person damaged classroom property (or worse, school property) but no one was willing to speak up and tell on the offender.

I have similar stories from our local neighborhoods where another parent might yell at you but the tales of your exploits made it home before you did. And there consequences waiting for you.

It’s a matter of timeline, not country.

By the late 1990s, I started to see said teachers pushing kids along as to 1) not deal with them again, and 2) pressure from district/state to not have as many failing students a.k.a. optimizing for the metric.