The part I’m calling out as untrue is the „magic 8 ball” comment, because it directly contradicts my own personal lived experience. Yes it’s a lying, noisy, plagiarism machine, but its accuracy for certain kinds of questions is better than a coin flip and the wrong answers can be useful as well.

Some recent examples

• I had it write an excel formula that I didn’t know how to write, but could sanity check and test.
• Worked through some simple, testable questions about setting up project references in a typescript project
• I want to implement URL previews in a web project but I didn’t know what the standard for that is called. Every web search I could think of related to „url previews” is full of SEO garbage I don’t care about, but ChatGPT immediately gave me the correct answer (Open Graph meta tags), easily verified by searching for that and reading the public documentation.
• Naming things is a famously hard problem in programming and LLMs are pretty good at „what’s another way to say” and „what’s it called when” type questions.

Just because you don’t have the problems that LLMs solve doesn’t mean that nobody else does. And also, dude, don’t scold people on the internet. The fediverse has a reputation and it’s not entirely a good one.

Well that’s just blatantly false. They’re extremely useful for the initial stage of research when you’re not really sure where to begin or what to even look for. When you don’t know what you should read or even what the correct terminology is surrounding your problem. They’re “Language models”, which mean they’re halfway decent at working with language.

They’re noisy, lying plaigarism machines that have created a whole pandora’s box full of problems and are being shoved in many places where they don’t belong. That doesn’t make them useless in all circumstances.

Sure, but you at least have something to work with rather than whatever you know off the top of your head

Because it’s like a search box you can explain a problem to and get a bunch of words related to it without having to wade through blogspam, 10 year old Reddit posts, and snippy stackoverflow replies. You don’t have to post on discord and wait a day or two hoping someone will maybe come and help. Sure it is frequently wrong, but it’s often a good first step.

And no I’m not an AI bro at all, I frequently have coworkers dump AI slop in my inbox and ask me to take it seriously and I fucking hate it.

Supreme Court has been playing calvinball since citizens united

You would immediately die in agony. No oxygen and a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere

People like this don’t think it was wrong

jesus christ they’re dumb

Charybdis, hippo, appa, Momo, pabu

Interesting read, I learned some things that git can do and its’s cool to know it’s possible, but I get the sense that „I’m just used to doing it this way” is the author’s main reason. Making most project communication private is a huge sacrifice, and if all projects did things this way then open source development would be far worse off.

I could imagine an „account-less” git forge that uses email verification to create user sessions that then allow conversation and contribution under that email address and name. You’d have to click a magic link in your email every time you wanted to create a session, but they could be long-lived and you don’t have to manage a password.