I’ve been writing code for 25+ years, and in tech for 27+.
I’m a novice at all languages still. Even though they tell me I’m a Principal Engineer.
There’s always some new technique or way to do what I want that’s better I’m learning every day. It never stops. The expectations for what I consider to be good code just continues to climb every day.
Musk is on the trump mushroom dick train because he’s afraid he’s going to get indicted, and trump has already offered him a full pardon.
This makes too much sense to not be true.
Porn POV
He has praised certain Democratic policies, opposed some core Republican policies like the 2017 tax cuts, and supported higher taxes for businesses and individuals without children.
Hmmm, I guess that makes sense. It’s been a while since I’ve bought a gas mower, roughly the late 90’s/00’s hah, been using electric/battery since then.
Most mower engines are 2-strokes, they’re designed to burn oil as lubrication basically, it’s added to the gas. You don’t need to change the oil. Unless it’s a 4 stroke engine (unusual due to size/complexity), or you’ve got a transmission or some other motorized mechanical behavior.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen.
This is incorrect. And I’m in the industry. In this specific field. Nobody in my industry, in my field, at my level, seriously considers this effective enough to replace their day to day coding beyond generating some boiler plate ELT/ETL type scripts that it is semi-effective at. It still contains multiple errors 9 times out of 10.
I cannot be more clear. The people who are claiming that this is possible are not tenured or effective coders, much less X10 devs in any capacity.
People who think it generates quality enough code to be effective are hobbyists, people who dabble with coding, who understand some rudimentary coding patterns/practices, but are not career devs, or not serious career devs.
If you don’t know what you’re doing, LLMs can get you close, some of the time. But there’s no way it generates anything close to quality enough code for me to use without the effort of rewriting, simplifying, and verifying.
Why would I want to voluntarily spend my day trying to decypher someone else’s code? I don’t need chatGPT to solve a coding problem. I can do it, and I will. My code will always be more readable to me than someone else’s. This is true by orders of magnitude for AI-code gen today.
So I don’t consider anyone that considers LLM code gen to be a viable path forward, as being a serious person in the engineering field.
They’re falling for a hype train then.
I work in the industry. With several thousand of my peers every day that also code. I lead a team of extremely talented, tenured engineers across the company to take on some of the most difficult challenges it can offer us. I’ve been coding and working in tech for over 25 years.
The people who say this are people who either do not understand how AI (LLMs in this case) work, or do not understand programming, or are easily plied by the hype train.
We’re so far off from this existing with the current tech, that it’s not worth seriously discussing.
There are scripts, snippets of code that vscode’s llm or VS2022’s llm plugin can help with/bring up. But 9 times out of 10 there’s multiple bugs in it.
If you’re doing anything semi-complex it’s a crapshoot if it gets close at all.
It’s not bad for generating psuedo-code, or templates, but it’s designed to generate code that looks right, not be right; and there’s a huge difference.
AI Genned code is exceedingly buggy, and if you don’t understand what it’s trying to do, it’s impossible to debug because what it generates is trash tier levels of code quality.
The tech may get there eventually, but there’s no way I trust it, or anyone I work with trusts it, or considers it a serious threat or even resource beyond the novelty.
It’s useful for non-engineers to get an idea of what they’re trying to do, but it can just as easily send them down a bad path.
Even so, he’s wrong. This is the kind of stupid thing someone without any first hand experience programming would say.
And we know this because…?
That’s not it at all. The issue is funding Mozilla. Having it as the default search engine is something google currently pays them for the right for. If the DOJ says that’s anti-trust practices, then Google stops paying Mozilla for that right, and 80% of Mozilla’s funding dries up overnight.
Yeah, exactly. This would have to be a Genie using the “Brewster’s Millions” rules, not the ones in the tweet. In that case, they wouldn’t be able to own anything bought with the 100M at the end of the month.
That’s pretty much exactly what he claimed.
He clearly was typing on his phone and his message was obvious.
It’s stock, not cash
Because Netflix didn’t dismantle the capitalism machine.
Capitalism can never fully disrupt itself. It’s always cyclical. If bundling eventually made it more money, then it will eventually return. If the response to that is to innovate something that gets around that form of bundling, then that “disrupts” the market, in the short term, only for the market to settle back to bundles.
Because as long as the idea makes more money in a capitalistic society, it will never die.
Yeah, there’s ways around this. It’s just that most of the ublock origin blocking specific code, isn’t reusable here and the team will need to start over to deal with this new tactic/approach from Google.
The cure might eventually be worse than the disease though. If not now, or tomorrow, then the next day.
Yup. It was bought as a tool to disrupt the next election. In that respect, it’s a hell of a good buy.