rowyourboat

All of this sounds just like any air crash investigation I ever read

What one pager, what words? This story needs more context if it is going to make sense

Which poses the question: Why does Google even need to catch up? At least currently, the name of the game is integration. The actual model is a commodity.

That's not really a fair comparison, no? Modern LLMs are much more capable than GPT-2. We'ld need a modern LLM trained on exclusively old data, and that might be impossible

We know very little about how psychological drugs work in general. Having to try multiple things to find one that works well for you is par for the course

No, it can't. It's going to be an interesting legal challenge.

Also, the European Court of Justice has, to the best of my knowledge, not ruled on this yet, either. The fact fight isn't over.

> there's no way for it to tell the button to cancel the color change

No, but what should happen in cases like that is that the on-click handler disables the button while it is unresponsive. This will communicate the fact that the button is unresponsive visually to the user and also inhibit the button-was-pressed feedback.

You're being sarcastic, but...

I guess that's why I burned out as a manager: I do not get a sense of accomplishment when my team achieves something

> No fluff, just the document in a shape the target audience expects

I see what you did there

Gaaa. Those short sentences. The style. Has this article been written by AI? I can't stand it any more.

> An AI-driven sensor activates and wall emitters blast infrasound waves toward the source of the fire in an attempt to put it out

What, exactly, is the role of AI in this context?

> always the poor specs

But that is fundamentally what agile is about. It's not about coding faster, it's the recognition that the specs are incomplete or wrong because fundamentally, a lot of customers cannot tell you what the want until they see it. That's why "build something simple and iterate on it" works. Regardless of how good your spec is, once the coding is done the customer is going to realise that that's not what they actually wanted.

This shows, once more, that humans are bad with modes. You have two copies of the repo, one in a transaction and one not in a transaction.

The problem is that the thing you use to build the transaction can also be used to directly manipulate the DB. A better API design would be to separate those two things.

> The people using GenAI reap a major time and cognitive effort savings, but the task of verification is shifted to the maintainer.

The people using GenAI should be the ones doing the verification. The maintainer's job should not meaningfully change (other than the maintainer using AI to review on incoming code, of course).

Why does everyone who hears "AI code" automatically think "vibe-coded"?