Numuruzero

I have a coworker who is essentially building a custom program in Sheets using AppScript, and has been using CGPT/Gemini the whole way.

While this person has a basic grasp of the fundamentals, there's a lot of missing information that gets filled in by the bots. Ultimately after enough fiddling, it will spit out usable code that works how it's supposed to, but honestly it ends up taking significantly longer to guide the bot into making just the right solution for a given problem. Not to mention the code is just a mess - even though it works there's no real consistency since it's built across prompts.

I'm confident that in this case and likely in plenty of other cases like it, the amount of time it takes to learn how to ask the bot the right questions in totality would be better spent just reading the documentation for whatever language is being used. At that point it might be worth it to spit out simple code that can be easily debugged.

Ultimately, it just feels like you're offloading complexity from one layer to the next, and in so doing quickly acquiring tech debt.

Super fun, pardner. That horse is looking a little sparse, though. Maybe you could draw that horse winning the lottery and subsequently losing most of that money to gambling debts?

I think top comment is a reference of some kind.

I heard something similar; the studio didn't think the movie would be popular if they used too many computer terms so they made them change the function to "battery". Initially the reason Neo has powers is because his node happens to have admin access.

I think the difference is that when you pay discord, they stop advertising to you.

My boss's favorite saying is to just make logical decisions.

I can't take him/her seriously because he/she is a Mormon and that's the least logical decision you can make.

The ramblings of an absolute madman. This is what they've been demanding your respect for.

I'll be honest, for a minute I thought it was not a flaw but referring to "Monday Me, on Monday" which is a concept I can relate to

I love this idea. Unfortunately, I think it's just a slightly unnatural vocal performance. Even though AI can perfectly replicate voices tonally, they can't truly generate the same cadence and inflections, or sometimes even get close without a good deal of human assistance. I suspect this will change over time. As with ChatGPT, we'll be looking to AI to solve the problem of AI mimicking humans too well.

In 99 we only had crappy dialup and I didn't really know how to browse the web, even if I sort of understood the basics (and I would have been six, admittedly). My dad would look up cheat codes at work for games I was playing and download the Web page onto a floppy drive to bring home to me. It was wild times.

That to say, the infrastructure was all there, but it's hardly guaranteed as a kid that you're browsing the web and know where to find all the best glitches.

I don't think it's just a feeling of futility - it's true phones can be distracting and offer more potential entertainment, and it's true learning can sometimes be a slog. At the same time, learning can be fun and engaging, and phones can offer access to a wealth of information (of highly varying quality, admittedly).

Concentrating too hard on mere academic success as gauged by metrics like school grades is undoubtedly discouraging for a student who only goes to school if they are told they must.

Essentially true but thoroughly reductive. Like saying "live music is all about saying look at me play all these notes"

I think legal semantics might just be beside the point. I believe she knew the possibility was there and accepted it, but the answer she was looking for is "how far does it go" when a person essentially publicly forfeits their rights. Blanket consent, the forfeiture of those rights, they don't fundamentally change that this is a person.

Really depends on her definition of being a witch. For the most part, hell yeah, I'm on board.