This is one long strawmen: you’re generalizing my argument for this single situation to every situation.

You’re basically accusing me of doing what you’re doing: thinking in black and white. In my case if I think that ruining his life here with severe punishment is wrong, it must always be wrong.

Ask yourself this. Is there anyone who did something very stupid in HS that turned out to be a good adult without facing severe consequences for their actions? I can think of a few.

Common or not, they did not make the argument. You presumed a position and then used that made up position to launch an ad hominem.

A kid was arrested, but released pending further investigation, so I’m hard pressed to believe there is no punishment for this. But we’re talking about teenagers here, the fact that he could be punished is there, but was not given serious consideration if any at all…because he isn’t a fully mature adult. So what would a more serious punishment do?

This is something probably solved with education rather than more punishment.

The human mind doesn’t even really fully mature until your mid 20s. A 15 year old still has a good full decade until full maturity, and they are notorious for making impulsive decisions without realizing the consequences of their actions.

What he did was wrong and he deserves punishment, but ruining his life too for being a dumb teenager does nothing for the unimaginable harm caused to this girl, it just makes more victims.

I don’t know what the right answer is, but I can tell you the wrong answer is to ruin a teenagers life over a stupid act when that isn’t going to solve anything.

Ultimately I’m not sure where I fall on this issue, but the fact that you just mindlessly claimed that this person wants to see tits and clits, when they said nothing of the sort, just exposes how fully you realize you can’t defend an actual position.

And they’ll find out very soon that they need devs when they actually try to test something and nothing works.

Anyone who claims llms are a nothingburger is frankly wrong,

Exactly. When someone says that it either indicates to me that they ignorant (like they aren’t a programmer or haven’t used it) or they are a programmer who has used it, but are not good at all at integrating new tools into their development process.

Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Yup. The problem I see now is that every mistake an ai makes is parroted over and over here and held up as an example of why the tech is garbage. But it’s cherry picking. Yes, they make mistakes, I often scratch my head at the ai results from Google and know to double check it. But the number of times it has pointed me in the right direction way faster than search results has shown to me already how useful it is.

Due to confusing business domain terms, we often name variables the form of XY and YX.

One time copilot autogenerated about two hundred lines of a class that was like. XY; YX; XXY; XYX; XYXY; … XXYYXYXYYYXYXYYXY;

It was pretty hilarious.

But that being said, it’s a great tool that has definitely proven to worth the cost…but like with a co-op, you have to check it’s work.

If I sort this community by top for the week, this is the top post.

The second post hilariously concludes “All work is degrading.”

legal verbiage is such a pointless waste and almost unnecessary

Wow. I like the rest of your position, but being precise in language, and understanding what things mean legally is extremely important.

If having no clue what most people need is the metric, were eliminating pretty much everyone from consideration.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone uses multiple question marks at the end of a statement. I’m triggered right now and reporting you for harassment. Lol

I haven’t taught my kids. . .yet.

However, they know that if they can’t find something they want to watch, they just have to ask me and I’ll get it from them. . .and that (sarcastically) “daddy is just borrowing it from the internet” so I think know what’s going on.

I always thought that facebook got a bad rap. I mean, it was stupid, but I always enjoyed it because I could catch up with old friends, who might not be actively in my life at the time, and for that it was special.

However, sometime recently (as in years, I guess) as people have left or become more private, my feed has slowly been taken over by suggested content. It’s always pushed front and center. Literally unavoidable because there is no setting to say “don’t suggest anything to me.” and no matter how often you hide shit, they’ll just keep feeding more. I’ve all but completely abandoned using facebook now…I just go on to check my local buy nothing group, or post things myself. Occasionally I go to see what stupid shit my previous good friend, who got totally sucked into Trump world, is saying.

Didn’t read article: check

Mindless shitting on America: check

All we’re missing is all rich people are bad!" And we would have hit the Lemmy trifecta.

A crowd of 10,000 people means fuck all compared to 158,429,631.

I agree that it would be a bad data set, but not because it is too small. That size would actually give you a pretty good result if it was sufficiently random. Which is, of course, the problem.

But you’re missing the point: just because something is obvious to you does not mean it’s actually true. The model could be trained in a way to not be biased by our number choice, but to actually be pseudo-random. Is it surprising that it would turn out this way? No. But to think your assumption doesn’t need to be proven, in such a case, is almost equivalent to thinking a Trump rally is a good data sample for determining the opinion of the general public.

“we don’t need to prove the 2020 election was stolen, it’s implied because trump had bigger crowds at his rallies!” -90% of trump supporters

Another good example is the Monty Hall “paradox” where 99% of people are going to incorrectly tell you the chance is 50% because they took math and that’s how it works.

Just because something seems obvious to you doesn’t mean it is correct. Always a good idea to test your hypothesis.

Windows bad, ai bad. Upvote. Thought isn’t a big consideration here.

I understand that confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. But we are talking about just making sure you are even just mildly informed before forming an opinion you think is valid.

The title is never going to be specific enough to remove all ability to misinterpret it. The title just tells you what the article is about. The article itself gives you all the necessary details. I agree that it shouldn’t be misleading, and in the case I think it could be improved, but that doesn’t change the fact that one should refrain from passing judgment about what happened based on a headline. If you don’t have the time to read the article, you also lack the time to form an valid opinion about what happened.