Without getting even more eyes on me, these company boards are inadequately scared for their personal safety.

If sufficient numbers of the population perceive to have lost their livelihoods due to AI, then I'd expect to see data centers burned to the ground and a lot of people swinging from lamp posts. Jury nullification solves the rest, but even that that assumes you can even find an impartial jury.

Why not just not vibecode? Safer methods of injecting recreational narcotics, such madness.

On a creative level, I remember McCarthy describing scalped heads as like wet polyps blue in the moonlight. The more generic ways of describing something like that would never give me such a visceral reaction to the violence he was trying to tell me something about.

I already lose interest reading books where the phrases are recycled and the max sentencelength for the whole book grazes 40.

If people communicate to me without personality through prompt wastrelry I'll discount theirs and wait till they're willing to actually have an opinion. In this specific context style and substance tend to come in a pair or not at all. If you can't beat 'em you can at least filter 'em out.

I submit that doing (4) earns 40 points, rather than 20.

Be very careful who sources your pacemaker.

Greptile literally spams PRs with overwhelming verbiage slop and often actively dangerous recommendations. I am tired of sales/propaganda masquerading as insight from vested interests.

Reminded of that episode of House where the lady with dormant syphillis had something like this.

I wonder are there any ways I can contract this without breaking marital vows

My impression is that people who think that LLMs will completely release reviewing or writing code have never really worked on anything safety critical. I'm not looking forward to the next wave of pacemaker glitches.

You act like we live in a world where companies are held sufficiently liable.

I'm wrong for that. But whenever I suggest solutions for that, police officers visit me!

Highly dependent on passage and writer imo, for anything before 1500

Some people I've had say middle english is easy enough to read now, and that's sometimes true, but if you drop some passages of Gawain or Pearl in front of people they'll be convinced it's an extra 2-300 years older. Anything non-London dialect is harder

At this stage the use this kind of rhetorical structure, whereby a series of affirmatory statements (sometimes alternatively a series of rhetorical questions) are used to hedge a following "but", is so regular and reliable a flagraiser that an article will be either propagandistic, blinded-by-science, or otherwise uncritically oleaginous towards AI, I know that I can close this article midway through already knowing that the title is both the substance of the argument and also incorrect.