This comment doesn't seem to fit the discussion at all?
The discussion is not about humans using LLLs to write papers. It is about humans who agreed not to use LLVM in reviewing papers, then did exactly that.
There's a lot of irony in a defensive comment being written based on misreading / inattentive reading of a post about reviewing papers (requiring attentive reading).
In addition to being a reviewer, they also submitted their own research to this journal. So it leads to the question: if they were willing to cheat on the side of review with less incentive, why wouldn’t they cheat on the side that provides more incentives?
(Meaning, your career doesn’t get boosted much for reviewing papers, but much more so for publishing papers)
It might be that paper authors required others not to use LLMs for reviewing their work. Then, by the rule of reciprocity, they shouldn't use LLMs for reviewing others work. The article is unclear on whether this implied reciprocity rule was explicitly stated or not.
As the DJ is an interface to shuffle, and the author specifically wants to listen to unshuffled music the lack of intelligence may not be entirely in the AI.
No side profile pics on the page. My only concern would be can it lay flat on a table for taking notes or does it have a camera bulge that makes it wobble?
I hate apple. Can't they just add a second bump on the other side? They're being a PITA with this wobble and it's been going on for like 15 years now (iPhone 7 forward)
FWIW, the iPad Air I bought a couple years ago has a small protrusion for the single camera lens, but does not wobble when laying flat and is not really noticeable. This latest iPad Air has a similar design.
I like the idea that people are downvoting and not rebutting a summary because they think that an accurate summary will cause folks to not read sixteen thousand words that they would otherwise. It’s kind of agreement by dissent
But at scale. Yegge gets close to it in this blog (which actually made me lol, good to see that he is back on form), but shies away from it.
If AI is producing a real productivity boom then we should be seeing a flood of high-quality non-AI related software. If building and shipping software is now easier and faster then all of the software that we have that doesn't quite work right should be displaced by high quality successors. It should be happening right now.
So where is it? Why is all this velocity going into tooling around AI instead? Face it, an entire industry has fallen into the trap of building the automation instead of the product they were trying to automate the production of.
Where is the new high quality C compiler that actually compiles the linux kernel to a measurably higher quality than gcc? If AI is really increasing productivity shouldn't we have that instead of a press-oriented hype flop?
reply