> annoying meme in feminism and history generally, that people in prior eras were idiots
This sounds like a strawman to me but I’m not well versed in feminism. Do you have examples? On the topic of science, isn’t the criticism more that women were largely ignored or misrepresented in scientific studies? This doesn’t have to be because the authors were “idiots”.
> If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more.
> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.
First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.
> Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.
Well, the choice is: either we leave it to economy and taxes which work, or we'll rely on shaming which doesn't work. To put it another way - it depends if you want to actually fix the problem or just want to have a moral high ground and don't really care about solving the problem.
> First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion.
You probably have more power over that than changing a whole population's behavior.
I'd wager you probably have more power over that than changing just one person's behavior (Felix).
> Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime).
And people are holding you accountable for the shaming. This leads primarily to polarization, not change. Polarized folks are more likely to increase the negative behavior.
The more you see and review LLM-generated code, the more you can detect its fingerprints. Obviously you're not going to prove this is LLM-generated. I wouldn't bet $1M that it is. This could be 100% human made.
or below: "// Auto-refresh every 5 seconds (only in Normal mode)". I would guess this comment was during a response to a prompt like: "can you only auto-refresh in Normal mode?"
This is another signal to me that there is less human influence over the project.
No, none of these are a smoking gun. Also none of this means it was completely vibe coded. To me personally, the worrying part is that these patterns signal that perhaps human eyes were never on that section of the code, or at least the code was not considered carefully. For a toy app, who cares? For something that ingests your AWS creds, it's more of a red flag.
Edit: changed the language a bit to sound less sardonic. My comment is more about LLM signals than a judgment on LLM usage.
I recently had the pleasure of reviewing some of my oldest production code from when I had first left college.
It worked, no issue there, but the amount of commentary I included definitely surprised me.
I guess I really needed the support structure of comments to keep my logic on track back then, whereas now even convoluted map-reduce one liners are things I see as just obvious literate programming.
I did go a long while in my career still writing code that way when I had to share it with people. I don’t think I stopped until the only people reading my code were senior engineers with way more qualifications than I had.
So, I wouldn’t say just from this code that the creator is an LLM.
Assuming you are in the US, consider that your perspective may be influenced by the modern (since second half 20th century) education system which so strictly stratifies by age. It actually is much stranger to me that we would expect peers to be exact age. There is a lot to learn from older kids, or even other (non-teacher, non-parent) adults.
Animal cruelty is alive and well in the factory farming industry, at a yearly scale orders of magnitude higher than the sum of all research experimentation in science during the 1960s.
“Traumatic overtraining” does have hits though. My guess is that “traumatically” is a rarely used adverb, and “traumatic” is much more common. Possibly it completed traumatic into an adverb and then linked to overtraining which is in the training data. I dunno how these things work though.
> It’s basically the Laffer curve which argues that tax receipts can actually go down with higher taxes rates as tax’s can discourage growth if high enough.
What you are describing is if we are on the right side of the curve. But is there any evidence that this is true?
When I read Sowell, someone who I imagine would be a champion for this cause, he cites the 1920s as his evidence that trickle-down works which doesn’t inspire confidence. If there is no modern evidence, why are we even entertaining this theory today?
I don't necessarily read it as condescending, but I do read it as presumptuous. What someone "should" do depends on many things. Maybe, because this is software in alpha stage, they should _not_ focus on this part of the code if it is minor compared to other obligations. Or maybe there are other reasons they've chosen not to do this (as was explained in an above comment).
IMO, a less presumptuous criticism would be phrased like "if you did X then benefits Y would happen", or "if you haven't, consider X", or even (the least presumptuous - make it a conversation!) "have you considered X?", rather than "you should do X".
I see what you mean. Perhaps it was just a "poor" choice of words for whatever reasons. I am sure we can assume he intended it in a way of "have you considered X?".
This sounds like a strawman to me but I’m not well versed in feminism. Do you have examples? On the topic of science, isn’t the criticism more that women were largely ignored or misrepresented in scientific studies? This doesn’t have to be because the authors were “idiots”.
reply