The idea that Google’s lack of knowledge of you a decade ago is somehow related to what they know today is naive. Dangerously naive, I would say. Ad targeting technology (= knowledge about you) is shocking good now.

Sure, but are you implying that is because of our stricter enforcement of the laws? Or other systemic / environmental causes (eg systemic poor mental health)?

I am unfamiliar with the reasons to which the varying murder rate is ascribed. If I had to guess, I would guess economics is #1.

On one hand, I totally agree - soliciting and giving feedback is a weakness.

On the other hand, it sounds like this workplace has weak leadership - have you considered leaving for some place better? If the manager can’t do their job enough to give you decent feedback and stop a guy giving 10 min stand ups, LEAVE.

Reasons for not leaving? Ok, then don’t be a victim. Tell yourself you’re staying despite the management and focus on the positive.

I agree. If the company culture is not even helping or encouraging people to give pragmatic feedback, the war is already lost. Even the CEO and the board are in for a few years of stress.

The biggest reason for not leaving is that I understand that perfect things don't exist and everything is about tradeoffs. My current work is complete dogshit - borderline retarded coworkers, hilariously incompetent management. But on the other hand they pay me okay salary while having very little expectations, which means that if I spend entire day watching porn instead of working, nobody cares. That's a huge perk, because it makes the de facto salary per hour insanely huge. Moreover, I found a few people from other teams I enjoy talking to, which means it's a rare opportunity for me to build a social life. Once they start requiring me to actually put in the effort, I'll bounce.

> we make a disease-by-disease risk/reward determination and do a slower schedule once they're a little older

This was honestly the weirdest part of that whole post.

So after all that “not everything is safe”, it sounds like you … wait a little while and then do it anyway? Is it less risky because your kids are a little older?? This seems so unlikely to me.

Anyway, I think a lot of that post demonstrates a failure of an ability to have a dialog (radicalized positions don’t lead to understanding imo).

In the US.

But this is irrelevant to the argument made above, right?

I think it's cheating to say PLA is stronger and then talk about PLA with carbon fiber added.

PLA-CF is not particularly stronger than PLA. Some properties are improved, mostly geometric stability and appearance, but the carbon fiber acts more like defects in the plastic than strengthening. It’s got very little of the benefits that you’d imagine based upon n experience with regular carbon fiber.

This. CF rarely makes a print stronger, usually just helps make some materials more forgiving to print. Particularly useful for warping prone ones.

This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.

I am unconvinced that the particular error mentioned above is a hallucination, and even less convinced that it is a sign of some kind of rampant use of AI.

I hope to find better examples later in the comment section.

I actually believe it was an AI hallucination, but I agree with you that it seems the problem is far more concentrated to a few select papers (e.g., one paper made up more than 10% of the detected errors).

Why don't you look at the actual article? There are several more egregious examples, e.g., the authors being cited as "John Smith and Jane Doe"

I can see that either way. It could also be a placeholder until the actual author list is inserted. This could happen if you know the title, but not the authors and insert a temporary reference entry.

The first Doe and Smith example I could give that to (the title is real and the arxiv ID they give is "arXiv:2401.00001", which is definitely placeholder), but the second one doesn't match a title and has fake URL/DOI that don't actually go anywhere. There's a few that are unambiguously placeholders, but they really should have been caught in review for a conference this high up.

How does a "placeholder citation" even happens? Either enter the citation properly now, or do it properly later. What role does a "placeholder citation" serve, besides giving you something to forget about and fuck up?

I do not believe the placeholder citation theory at all.

What's the big deal with one dead canary? This coal mine's productivity is at record highs!

> This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.

Well, to be fair, I did encounter this from actual human peer reviewers before the whole LLM thing. People do that.

> What's the point? Marketing for my skills as a developer? There's no more need for software consultants now with Copilot/etc. I have to change careers.

I encourage you to find a way out of this belief, or at least least fend it off as long as possible.

You can see from recent HN postings that most people are not experiencing career-ending levels of performance from LLMs.

>most people are not experiencing career-ending levels of performance from LLMs.

You don't have to. Experiencing increased competition for jobs or lower pay for the same job (because less devs are needed for the same level of output) is just as bad.

Experiencing increased competition for jobs or lower pay for the same job (because the AI industry imploded and the devs from that industry are now in the market) is just as bad.

The rise of companies you might end up where some/most the codebase or db schemas were vibe generated is just as bad. LLMs are the new VB6. At least, with VB6 the initial complexity of the apps would be limited by how much the cowboy coder could handle (ie. not infinite). With LLMs that limit is an order of magnitude higher. I expect many of the future legacy apps to be dangerous jungles of vibes many contractors will be urgently hired to immediately fix when things begin behaving weirdly and the causes of the issue are hidden somewhere in the jungle.

Any of the above is bad enough on its own, let alone combined. I strongly believe two of the above will happen within the next 5 years.

Third possibility negates the first two.

Also, did VB6 put anyone out of work?

> Asking whether VB6 was out of work is the wrong question.

Asking whether you would like to work with a cowboy coded VB6 for low pay is a better one. The companies that have less cowboy coded apps are the companies everyone wants to work at. The more companies with cowboy coded apps, the harder it gets to get a job at a company with minimal cowboys imo.

VB6 apps haven't disappeared anymore than Cobol systems have.

"Third possibility negates the first two." It doesn't. Those 3 things don't need to all happen. Any of them alone is enough to significantly worsen the pay or quality of life of your average dev. And the 3 things don't even need to happen at the same time anyway.

Or instigating conflict?

What...what conflict do you think I'm instigating, exactly? Whether the command line is a better interface than Excel?

There is no way your grocery store has lettuce from two different vendors and isn’t labeling the difference.

You could wonder if the distributor is commingling. Milk production, probably. They’re taking responsibility for the quality of the final product, though.

The arugula issue a few years back revealed that whilst they’re technically labeled it wasn’t in any customer-identifiable way (serial number shenanigans).

Now the location is clearly printed on each bag.