Was the axe or the chainsaw designed in such a way that guarantees that it will definitely miss the log and hit your hand fair amount of the times you use it? If it were, would you still use it? Yes, these hand tools are dangerous, but they were not designed so that it would probably cut off your hand even 1% of the time. "Accidents happen" and "AI slop" are not even remotely the same.
So then with "AI" we're taking a tool that is known to "hallucinate", and not infrequently. So let's put this thing in charge of whatever-the-fuck we can?
I have no doubt "AI" will someday be embedded inside a "smart chainsaw", because we as humans are far more stupid than we think we are.
Because this isn't just converting HTML to markdown. I'd recommend taking another look at the website and particularly read the recipe example as it demonstrates the goal of the project pretty well.
I'm glad you shared your experience because I've dealt with this for decades. It's usually a small snippet, 15 seconds or less, of a song that just loops over and over for me.
What I do to combat this, and other "brain noise", is also to listen to music but I use headphones with high volume. I also listen to the same playlist repeatedly so it's not distracting and instead quiets that loud part of my brain to allow me to focus.
I'm relieved to know from reading this thread I'm not completely crazy. I have the same thing, a very, very short snippet just repeatedly "playing". I become very conscious of it at various moments and try to "change the track" to some other repeated snippet. I've yet to find a pattern to which track is next.
I agree that not everyone wants to be. I think OPs point though is the market will make “not being a prompt engineer” a niche like being a COBOL programmer in 2025.
I’m not sure I entirely agree but I do think the paradigm is shifting enough that I feel bad for my coworkers who intentionally don’t use AI. I can see a new skill developing in myself that augments my ability to perform and they are still taking ages doing the same old thing. Frankly, now is the sweet spot because the expectation hasn’t raised enough to meet the output so you can either squeeze time to tackle that tech debt or find time to kick up your feet until the industry catches up.
If you think of FE web development as just HTML, CSS, JS and the framework de jour then I could see that. However, the most skilled FE engineers I know aren’t just doing that. It involves handling CI/CD, performance profiling/enhancements, CDNs, debugging node environments, asset management, caching strategies and the list goes on. I’m not necessarily arguing that it should be included in CS degrees but all of that is surely not a designers job.
I’m no climate scientist but I would think it’s similar to toxicity/poisoning. You can die from water intoxication but certainly you need it to live as well. So no, I don’t think it’s subjective. It seems to me that if something is capable of causing harm in a certain amount, it’s poisonous/pollution/toxic.
I'm legitimately unsure here but how are single parents incentivized financially? That's an environment that I am wholly unfamiliar with so I really have no context.
They are saying financial incentives should be to force people together vs support single parents. The unsaid part is to encourage, through policy, marriage and traditional family structures by way of less access to secular social safety programs. The problem is that this leads to people being forced to stay in abusive or unhealthy relationships because of someone else's ideology.
If you work backwards further, you'll find you're unable to fix dysfunctional relationships through economic policy. ~40% of annual pregnancies in the US are unintended, so perhaps more accessible family planning is what is needed, so that people who don't want to be parents don't become parents.
"The world is never unhappy because of children who have not yet been born; it is grief stricken by children who have been placed on the planet without anyone to love them adequately. We can cope with fewer children, we can't cope with yet more parents insufficiently dedicated to the tasks of love." -- Unknown
Given the GP's statistic, I think you could argue that raising a child fatherless is itself unhealthy and abusive. How we weigh one harm against the other is a sticky mess, but we could probably start by curbing no-fault divorces, at least when kids are involved. Let people get divorces in cases of abuse, but "we got bored of each other" divorces harm kids and the rest of society pays the price.
Agree to disagree. You only get one life, and then you die. Having children shouldn't be an emotional death sentence if your marriage sucks (50% of first marriages end in divorce, 60%+ for second marriages). You can coparent just fine divorced if both parents are involved, financially stable, and emotionally well adjusted. You can even have children without being married. The economic part is the primary problem (having kids one can't afford). Forcing people economically (using policy) into longterm unhappiness will not lead to the desired outcome.
Tangentially, there are ~400k children in foster care in the US at any moment in time, roughly 1/4 of which are adoptable. No one adopts them, and then they age out into adulthood. What happens next as adults, the statistics are grim (roughly 25 percent become homeless).
So, these various datasets leads me to the conclusion that we have a long way to go to help people who don't want kids to not have them (while still robustly supporting parents who very much want to parent). This, I believe, will lead to better outcomes overall. I also argue society wants healthy productive citizens who will be taxpayers and generate productivity, but doesn't give a damn about helping parents or struggling children (you would think advocates of universal school lunches were asking for someone's head on a platter, for example), so society deserves what it gets in that regard until it's ready to invest. Talk is cheap.
Don’t you think that blockers affecting long term timelines will have ripple effects for higher level planning? Not everyone involved in that communication will be clued in to the day to day messages.
I don’t think that’s another way to state that… The original statement is a bidirectional statement. Meaning you should also be able to decline calls and the other party will have to respect your preferences some of the time. It’s just basic balance and social graces, really.
