EatATaco

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

And they'll find out very soon that they need devs when they actually try to test something and nothing works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Anyone who claims llms are a nothingburger is frankly wrong,

Exactly. When someone says that it either indicates to me that they ignorant (like they aren't a programmer or haven't used it) or they are a programmer who has used it, but are not good at all at integrating new tools into their development process.

Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Yup. The problem I see now is that every mistake an ai makes is parroted over and over here and held up as an example of why the tech is garbage. But it's cherry picking. Yes, they make mistakes, I often scratch my head at the ai results from Google and know to double check it. But the number of times it has pointed me in the right direction way faster than search results has shown to me already how useful it is.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

Due to confusing business domain terms, we often name variables the form of XY and YX.

One time copilot autogenerated about two hundred lines of a class that was like. XY; YX; XXY; XYX; XYXY; ..... XXYYXYXYYYXYXYYXY;

It was pretty hilarious.

But that being said, it's a great tool that has definitely proven to worth the cost...but like with a co-op, you have to check it's work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Lol I'm over it. Enjoy. I'm hoping to join you real soon out in this nice weather we're having.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

They did something wrong. We both agree.

But the suggestion that doing something to correct the offense is considered an admission of guilt is garbage logic. This is why people are so hesitant to apologize or move to correct perceived wrongs, because people treat doing so as an admission that you did something wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I believe I've already answered your question, with the statement I quoted, which is why I'm asking you what you think that means.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The potential of a “exclusion argument” does not justify reinforcing the servile, assistant stereotype.

My point is that no matter what openai did, the author could have found sexism in it. It's not hard to create something like this if you're really trying.

I could pull together a youtube playlist of beardy men explaining why woman hating is bad. Would you like that?

I don't follow.

(Edit: Rhetorical. We can all see your true colors with the “gay agenda” conspiracy pushing bs.)

Lol. I've been an lbgtq ally probably even before you were born. The fact that I can see that this ridiculously biased source for what it is doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist against gay people.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You were desperate to reveal my "try colors" and, by golly, you were going to find it regardless of how much you had to spin.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

He’s clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway

Can you explain to me what you think this line meant?Because I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

They do have 2 male voices. The article is complaining about the choice of sky for the demo.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Didnt hear this radio interview, but the video they released sounded too close based on the fact that they asked for permission and she said no.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (15 children)

But if OpenAI didn’t do anything wrong, why would it take down the voice?

This almost made me stop reading. What a garbage point, if someone is offended by something I did, even if I did nothing wrong, I don't do it to them again because I'm not an asshole. He's clearly an asshole who tried to use her voice anyway, but this line of questioning is garbage...decent people apologize all the time when they've done nothing wrong, and then not do the offending thing again, without admitting guilt.

But the design choice is worrying on an ethical level. Researchers say it reinforces sexist stereotypes of women as servile beings who exist only to do someone else’s bidding — to help them, comfort them, and plump up their ego.

And this is where I stopped. If they had used a male voice, they could have argued that they were excluding women. But they did a study and picked the voice people would respond to the best. And objective choice. The author set out to find sexism, and by golly they did it. Amazing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

After the uproar, I was expecting it to be way closer...but not at all? Really?

view more: ‹ prev next ›