I hope your book won’t have a table of context and those stupid indexes. If they read it, they should know where you mention topics, right? Tables of contents considered harmful! /s
A software engineer that loves Disroot and the team behind it.
I hope your book won’t have a table of context and those stupid indexes. If they read it, they should know where you mention topics, right? Tables of contents considered harmful! /s
I’d love to learn what that damage was. I often see complaints (sometimes also involving tech choices) but usually they’re not specific, so I’m always left wondering.
That’s the next level of trolling!
I want people like you around me!
My main concern with people making fun of such cases is about deficiencies of “AI” being harder to find/detect but obviously present.
Whenever someone publishes a proof of a system’s limitations, the company behind it gets a test case to use to improve it. The next time we - the reasonable people arguing that cybernetic hallucinations aren’t AI yet and are dangerous - try using such point, we would only get a reply of “oh yeah, but they’ve fixed it”. Even people in IT often don’t understand what they’re dealing with, so the non-IT people may have even more difficulties…
Myself - I just boycott this rubbish. I’ve never tried any LLM and don’t plan to, unless it’s used to work with language, not knowledge.
Now I’d love to see a Perl monk comic!
I’ve recently changed to a part-time contract, thanks to decent wages we get in IT. None of my friends outside of IT could afford that. If anyone claims IT professionals earn too little, they should change their job and see how much their life improves then.
I’m beginning to feel we’re no longer talking about Clean Code being bad, but about people following ideas they don’t understand, which is not related or caused to any particular book.