Can't it be 404 throwing a little egg on google's face? Point out their shit smells every once in a while.

Yeah, there's no big revelation here. Just what you would expect the rank and file at a slopshop subjected to the current state of AI think of the slop when they ain't publicly shilling for the home team.

But pointing this all out is fine, especially when there's plenty of other coverage where everyone pretends like obvious open secrets aren't true unless a peer-reviewed meta-analysis proves it. And even then we should still give them the benefit of the doubt because maybe this time it's different.

Disliked thing can have positive utility? Must mean the criticism is wrong. gg's in chat and checkmate, atheists.

A) don't exist, therefore not a concern

B) known to exist, therefore not a concern

I don't think a 4 year postsecondary education is enough time to make a developer that can hit the ground running. Not if it's 100% of class time on CS theory. Nor if it were 4 years of vocational training and labwork that leaned heavy into AI. Nor some mix. We train on the job heavily, it's just not possible to fit everything into the sausage grinder.

So why not throw in some mandatory non-major electives? Take the time to do stuff that frustrates people who want uni to be a certificate mill. I don't care if green employees are experts at the exact narrow set of tools I use. I want them to be good at learning, and to have gotten most of the standard CS topics out of the way.

Oh, whoopsie!

Still can't. "ChatGPT can make mistakes." People still trust it, doesn't mean they should. Wiki's not as bad of a tertiary source as it used to be, but it's still a tertiary source and you had a research assignment. Even official authoritative sources can be un/intentionally wrong.

> You should never date someone you met through an app or website because they are 100% murderers.

This remains sound advice that teachers should continue giving children. Even (or morso) now that online dating has been normalized in the meantime. Do I have to explain?

I can't tell if this is a clever dig that comically undercuts the premise of the previous line, or it's an unaware unironic attempt to separate off a perceived un-serious type of poster.

Oh, hey, I recognize you. Thank you for the very forward and thorough orbital sander recommendation at Home Depot. That's exactly what I wanted to deal with on my holiday weekend. You just know so much about this and the rest of us are simple passersbys.

I agree, but there's something I also kinda respect about saying the quiet part out loud.

Other AIs are executed just slyly enough for anyone with legitimate criticism to be given a hard time by a specious and silver-tongued communications departments, or a eager outside sycophant. Sure, $HEAD of $AI_VENTURE probably does has a genuine good faith idea or two about AI. They might not always be lying in the press. But the companies still act in dystopian bad faith.

Just narrow your window of thought to easier problems for the LLM, and all of a sudden the LLMs do everything you want!

Reminds me of playing around with image generation models. Someone who's been practicing can crank out prompts for really impressive images back to back. But you try to use an everyday object or concept the model isn't trained on? Everybody will race to show off how smart they are by saying "just don't hold it like that."

I've spoken with some people (now in their 60s & 70s) that worried about skill atrophy in their line of work.

First they worried about atrophy. Then they watched skill dry up. Now they know it's not available to buy anywhere. In the better cases the skills still exist, but entirely overseas.

These are people I could recognize as sharp engineers, even if I don't know their domains at all. I had to take them at their word about the value in what was lost. The problem is that it's easy to assume that business (or at least society) would prevent degradation of valuable knowledge over time.

Did you write this comment with AI, or can you explain why so many people use the exact same terrible metaphor?

I feel like everything posted to HN that talks about technology or the business around it while trying to show personality or make arguments from humanity gets this kind of response. Sure each time the reason is tailored, but they all add up to point the vector in one direction. Unless it's bland buisnessminded blandness, it can't be taken serious. Even the cringe coke-fueled rants about tech are received better because they're in the direction of excitement for building future product.

If we're gonna fight, lets go xbox vs playstation. Javscript runtimes are a snoozefest.

Once bitten twice shy, y'know. Maybe the first bite wasn't even from bun. If bun can't take this on the chin and come back stronger, maybe bun wasn't a good choice to begin with. I'm sure a future version of bun with a rebuilt reputation will have an easy time getting re-adopted by most projects that needed to play it safe during the transition.