This is outright false. I have used ChatGPT many times over the last couple months and I have caught it give me un-working code, unfinished code, and terribly buggy code. When you point this out it will say Oh sorry about that here is an updated version, and I've caught it give another bug, and another after that. If you are telling me the quality of code that ChatGPT gives you is high then it pains me to say but you must not provide high quality code yourself.
When you used google previous to chatgpt, did you force yourself to only allow yourself to use the “I’m feeling lucky” way of search along with having to use the result as your unadjusted production code. Did you never modify the code you came across?
Of course not, that’s ridiculous. You probably searched, read a few stackoverflow comments, found a relevant GitHub repo, a library for python/language of choice, and probably also a SAAS offering solely focused on the 3 lines of code you need. You quickly parsed all that and decided to modify some code in one of the SO comments for your needs. Next time, you looked passed half the junk and went straight to the first SO result and was able to tweak and use the result. The next time, it didn’t help but did help you write some inspired custom code for the problem, at least you knew what not to try.
My point being ai is useful. It’s not meant to be first result is final answer type solution, if that’s how you use it you will have issues.
How can you say that something is outright false if there is not fact/claim you can disprove. You’re responding to someone you don’t know and have no idea what they are working on.
I’m (not OP!) a cloud engineer but also work on a lot of FE (React) code for internal tools. ChatGPT has saved me countless hours (literally tens a month) writing super simple code that I am able to easily write up myself but typing it out just takes time. After month of using it I find myself still quite excited whenever cGPT saved me another hour. We also use Retool, but I find myself writing code ‘myself’ more often since cGPT launched.
No, I wouldn’t just copy paste production code handling PII, but prototyping or developing simple tools is sooooo much faster, for me.
Sure, it doesn't nail it 100% on the first prompt 100% of the time. Sometimes it takes a few prompts. It's no big deal. If you can't get it to write effective code, either you're working in a very niche area, or you haven't figured out how to use it properly.
Another reason someone can’t get it to write effective code is if they don’t know how to code or aren’t a very good programmer.
I use it a ton. Most of the time it’s very helpful, sometimes I can’t get it to write effective code. If the code it outputs doesn’t meet my standards, I just don’t use it. But I know what I’m looking for, and when ChatGPT generates it, if not only saves me a shitload of time, but more importantly it saves me a ton of mental energy that I can spend elsewhere. The biggest thing for me is that using ChatGPT helps my brain do fewer “context switches” between focus on high level business logic and low level implementation logic. By staying “high level” I’m able to accomplish more each day because I don’t get lost in the sauce as often.
I often have to “upgrade” the code myself with tests, better comments, modify the data structures a bit. Sometimes I tell ChatGPT to do this, sometimes I do it myself. But it’s been very helpful overall.
The big takeaway is that your output will only be as good as your own programming skill, regardless if you use ChatGPT or write it yourself.
I concur. It's just like any other tool, it's only as good as the person using it. I just can't understand the resistance of people in this field. I was a naysayer on a number of things like Docker when it first came out because it didn't solve any of my problems at the time. Then, k8s came out and Docker was a pivotal part of that solution, and k8s solves many problems.
ChatGPT writing code so you don't have to, I just can't conceptualize how that's not an instant win for just about everyone.
Is it 'outright false'? The code it creates is can only as good as the prompt. It's just GIGO all over again...
I got it to write exactly the test I wanted for a snippet of code on the third prompt attempt by specifying exactly the two specific technologies I wanted it to use and one keyword that describes an idiom that I needed. It would have been slightly faster than doing it myself.
Technically it was test code, not production code, but had it been my code rather than just some code I was looking at I would have committed the test code it wrote to the repo with zero reservations.
No, because junior devs usually improve over time.
I've tried Copilot and a few other AI codegen tools. Aside from producing overall low quality/nonworking code, the only times they seem to get better long-term are when a new update to the model comes out.
I should have been clear but ChatGPT was one of the "other AI codegen tools" I mentioned, especially as it's the one I used most recently. I tried it for a month or so but then canceled my subscription. I got some use out of it for answering questions for friends who were learning CS for the first time in languages I didn't know, but I didn't get much else from it which felt like it was high enough quality that it really saved me time or effort.
Edit:
And to contrast with junior developers: I find pairing with them something that makes me not only help me figure out the requirements of the things we're working on--which admittedly ChatGPT does do, but I think that's mostly by virtue of rubber ducking--but it helps me figure out approaches I wouldn't have thought of before, or encourages me to write more maintainable code by seeing when another person's eyes start glazing over.
Trying to claim that someone else’s personal experience is factually wrong? The internet teaches everyone great arguing quips, sure. But “outright false” actually MEANS something. Your comment is all emotion.
'Something is wrong' is different from 'this can be done better', though. The first one is unfalsifiable, the second can be potentially falsified by putting forward a new way to do it. The first one is mushy language with no clear goal, the second one is an actual constructive plan forward.
If you take the stance that in-person work is more effective (an "uncomfortable truth" as you call it), then it would seem to reason that engineers who transferred to remote work would see a decrease in performance, but that is not the case as you also mention.
It seems like the real issue may be the hiring process between remote and in-person engineers, or biases in evaluating in-person vs. remote engineers.
The real issue may be one of the ones you mentioned. It could also be that employees who spend at least some significant time in person are more effective than those who are and always were fully remote.
I don't think you are in touch with the reality of the housing market right now. That "posh" neighbourhood that you're referring to is most likely where people were born and raised and the first place you want to buy a home. I live in Etobicoke, Canada. My neighbour across the street growing up recalled a time they built the houses in the neighbourhood and it was previously farm fields. My parents bought their house, a cottage, and paid both off quickly. Property is now selling for almost $2 million. In 2 generations it went from field to affordable to completely unaffordable, and Etobicoke is far from any kind of "rich people lifestyle".
It's not "their" city/neighbourhood. It existed before them and it will exist after. What gives someone a right to move in and create laws to make it harder for other people to do the same thing they did? I understand they actually have that right, it's just shitty to have that kind of mindset.
> What gives someone a right to move in and create laws to make it harder for other people to do the same thing they did?
Conversely, what gives a right to people who don't even live somewhere to go pass laws in that place so that those who have made their life there can no longer afford to stay and need to get kicked out so that the newcomers can take their place?
Either of these is too extreme, there needs to be some reasonable middle ground. But arguing that outsiders with no connection to a city other than the wish to live there someday are allowed to make laws to get rid of the locals, that doesn't sound right.
The people that currently live there are not being ousted by outsiders imposing laws on them so they can no longer afford to live there. That is false. The people that currently live there are making laws so that no one else can move into the neighbourhood.
Indeed I felt that way too when reading passages such as:
"As I was looking around, I was struck for an instant by the eeriness of the scene: here I was, attached, like an unwanted child, by an umbilicus to a gargantuan mother who was fleeing across the sky at 200 knots as though from some unnamed danger. Far below us was a broken layer of clouds that filtered the sun glare over the Pacific."
Wonderfully poetic and I enjoyed it, but yes, wordy.
I'm interested to know why you feel the question is insensitive. One of the biggest perks I look for in any position is the time off and how it's handled. If a company wants me working hard and giving them my best I want my time off to reflect that.
They are most likely going to clamp down on vacation time or deny it altogether when the times comes so I see the question as completely fair.
I mean I agree. If a restaurant I am eating at is on fire and the manager instead of making sure my fries are crisp and well seasoned is busy with other things, I will be totally pissed off.
One of the perk of eating good burger is great side of fries. If a restaurant manager can't even ensure that, then the place probably deserves what its getting.
Well it depends a lot on context I suppose. I thought it insensitive because it could come across as "I know you've just said you're going to lay a bunch of folks off, but since I'm on the lifeboat, can we talk a little bit about my time off..."
I look at it like this. When I signed up for the job you promised me this thing, we're in a bit of a downturn, am I still able to get that thing you promised me?
PayPal is garbage. Every interaction I have had with them has been miserable. At a previous ecommerce company we basically had to accept that 95% of our fraud claims would be denied without reason, just denied and closed and money lost, disregarding our proof.
> The major sense I get from Canadians whenever I arrive back is an enormous sense of financial illiteracy.
Completely false. Ask any Canadian how they feel about their internet or mobile phone bill and they will tell you they're being ripped off. We have been battling Rogers and Bell for decades, they have too much money and influence at this point.
I mean my phone bill isn't 200$ and massively data capped with bad coverage anymore so if it's to get a better deal on your phone bill then that's my advice yes
I think financially literate people in Canada don't pay anywhere near $200. I've always paid around $50/mo for the last 20 years, without ever going out of my way to shop for promotions, and have been able to have all the data usage I could reasonably use (previously excluded watching videos when not on Wi-Fi, but the most recent plan of a few years has enough data that I no longer need to), plus extra bells and whistles like free roaming in the US. This is with both a corporate plan with Bell the last 6-7 years, and a regular single individual plan with Rogers all the years before that, so wasn't even with a lower cost provider.
There are huge promotions multiple times a year because the competition is fierce between the top providers. When long-term contracts that subsidized phones were still around up to a few years ago, the buyouts to switch providers were so aggressive that you could end up with an extra few hundred dollars in your pocket on top of a new phone every 2 years when switching providers, or staying with the same provider and getting the loyalty/retention department to match offers. Yes, there may be better deals to be found down south sometimes, but not by enough of a margin to deal with cross-border banking, currency conversion, and much worse consumer protection laws for most people.
Yes, additional competition might potentially help drive prices down, but the low ROI on the huge amount of infrastructure required for such a small population might also result in worse economies of scale for all players resulting in the need to cut corners on coverage or service quality to remain competitive.
Also, I'm not convinced coverage is better down south. Anecdotally, I seem to hit way more deadspots driving down I5 through Washington and Oregon than I do on Highway 1 across BC to Alberta despite having much larger swathes of populated areas. I'm also shocked everytime I go to New York and get zero cell signal in every subway station including near Wall Street, when every underground transit station in Vancouver has coverage (admittedly Toronto does not have this though).
I have one question, have the prices gone up or down over the past decade? I will admit I'm not familiar with the market there for about as long for sure.
Last time I had a bill in my name in Canada it was pretty pricey to get any reasonable amount of international (Not just USA) roaming plans with reasonable amounts of data, like around 200 for sure.
I get the point that if you buy a device with the singular goal to maximize a bee population, the author has many valid points.
But there's counter points. The first one being is that most of these products, including the one the author is showing in the opening of the article, are not bee hotels. They are insect hotels.
Parasitic insects are insects. And there's nothing inherently wrong with them. My tubes are filled with solitary bees, wasps stuffing their tube with tiny spiders, bumblebees, a whole bunch of diversity. And yes, there's competition for tubes and parasitic behavior.
Which is all perfectly normal and natural. I photograph insects as a hobby. In the wild, parasitic behavior is the norm. Most caterpillars are dead before they know it, as they're easy prey for parasitic wasps to inject their eggs into. Many insects are covered in mites.
What can I say? Insects have a short and brutal life. Most don't make it to adulthood and that is kind of how it is supposed to be.
This is not to say that many of the tips in the article are bad, they are still good. But not just for bees, they are good tips in general.
The one tip I'd stress the most is the cheap nests being too shallow. In moderate climates where there's an actual winter, don't be afraid to go 30cm deep.
The other thing I'd add is to think of their "habitat" outside the hotel. Digg in a bucket of water and you'll have a mini pond where many will come to drink. Plants the proper flowers, etc.
Weeds are just plants but there are reasons to control them, too - for one we value certain plants over others and certain plants are much more beneficial to ecosystems than others. Too many parasites due to poor design is just a parasite farm which is awfully macabre. I have no sympathy for blood sucking parasites: someone else did all the work and they just come along for the ride. To the flames.
On the other hand, I'll tolerate most spiders (yes, not insects, I know) since they actually put the work into making a web and so on.
Clearly, an insect hotel is not for you. You treat nature as a source of entertainment to cherry pick.
Even if you favor particular insect species, usually because of ridiculous reasons like liking their colors, you seem to miss the point that they're supposed to have enemies.
Why do you think insects lay an incredible amount of eggs? Because 99% will not make it. They're not supposed to make it. If the caterpillars of your favorite butterfly would all survive, there'd be no foliage left anywhere, which in turn would collapse many other things.
Applying human morality to nature is even more ridiculous. Our very own species is a million times worse than the absolute worst parasitic insect.
Is a garden not for me because I choose what to plant? Is a hotel not for me because I choose to evict the guests that lie in wait to suck the other residents' blood? This is not picking and choosing on a global scale, this is picking and choosing who gets to stay in my hotel - some guests are better behaved than others. Some guests increase suffering more than others, too. Parasites are free to find somewhere else.
(I think it's worth noting that your position would be extremely unpopular among pet owners - and I think justifiably so. The issue with parasitism is that it basically exploits the success of another organism without necessarily offering gains to anything else, and that's really not something that should be rewarded. Do we really need to argue about the reality that much of what happens in nature is unnecessarily cruel? Maybe some of it is necessary, like the spiders I will tolerate, to prevent us becoming overwhelmed, but I think that's not entirely true.)
Yes, technically it's your garden and you can optimize it to whatever superficial pleasure it gives you. Just don't confuse that with a love or appreciation for nature as it's mostly about loving yourself.
The very idea extends to pet owners. You domesticate an animal so far that it is basically an extension of yourself. Or, you take a wild animal (bird, fish, turtle, rabbit, etc.) and constrain it for life. You imprison it, prevent it from performing any remotely natural behavior, block it from reproducing...all so that for at best a few minutes per day you can look at it and tell yourself...I really love animals.
You apply all this needless suffering to animals for mere personal entertainment, it serves not a single evolutionary purpose.
And then you turn around to complain about the "suffering" induced by parasites, and that parasites show bad behavior. There's no such thing as bad behavior in nature, it's a man-made concept. A parasite is a parasite evolved to survive and reproduce that way. It just IS. It feeds at the expense of others and it gets preyed on itself by robber flies and birds.
But I bet you love birds. Fun creatures to see. Cheerful. Also mass murderers that kill hundreds of insects, nymphs ("babies") included on any given day, without a care in the world.
Human morality plays no role in this. All of these things are connected and normal. Not just that, they are needed if you don't want plague-like imbalances. Insects are not supposed to have a high success rate.
Your selective shopping in behavior is not only delusional, it's not even consistent. You "tolerate" spiders over parasites. Spiders paralyze their prey, wrap it, then suck out the liquids whilst still alive.
Again, I get it. You want to see "nature" in a way that makes you feel comfortable. It's about you. Not about nature. It's not nature's purpose or problem to make you feel comfortable based on random fabrications in your mind.
I am nature, not separate from it. I choose what gets to stay in my insect hotel, and I do not choose parasites. Does that make you uncomfortable? Sure seems like it. I'd reflect on your final sentence to see that it literally cannot make coherent sense unless you think I am somehow a special case in nature's plan.
Feel free to have your insect hotel infested with parasites. I'm sure your guests will be grateful instead of suffering.
I already said that you can do whatever you want in your garden. I am merely engaging with delusional justifications that make no sense, are inconsistent, selfish and shows a complete lack of understanding of how nature works.
I'm not gatekeeping, I'm having a discussion. I'm merely providing counter points against the common god complex people have in "managing" nature, whilst this leads to more plagues and less biodiversity, not more.
I lost a chunk of my remaining faith in humanity when I heard that in the US some (many?) people think clovers of all things are weeds, after being successfully branded as such by weedkiller companies (whose products indiscriminately kill non-grass species, so easier to just redefine “weed” as “anything killed by our stuff”)! Clovers are nitrogen fixers for fuck’s sake, massively valuable for any ecosystem including your lawn. Not even going into the whole issue of how horrible an idea monocultural lawns are for all the other reasons…
Fair point, although I suppose most weeds aren't parasitic so disvaluing them is quite a bit more prone to errors based entirely on aesthetics. I'd fully agree that basing ecological decisions on aesthetics is a terrible idea.
A question that show exactly the problem I was trying to explain.
The purpose of an insect hotel is to support insect diversity/populations which is lacking typically in urban areas. Insects in turn doing wonders for plant diversity in the area and attracting birds, for being prey items. An insect hotel is a tool that along with a few other small and simple measures, may make your garden much more wildlife friendly.
The comparison with chicken falls short. People have chicken for their eggs, meat and/or personal entertainment. There's no ecological goal of supporting chicken diversity as they're not exactly in decline, nor do they play any meaningful role in relation to native wildlife.
Chicken are for you, a utility. An insect hotel is not for you, it's to help insects and related wildlife. Insects are not pets, you should not cherry pick them with zero understanding of how the dynamics work. 99.99% of insects should die before adulthood, and even adulthood is typically mere days or weeks.
When we moved into our new place, we put our fence in a few feet from the actual back of our house, and planted a strip of native, pollinator-friendly plants in a little micromeadow.
I did a similar thing, planted rose bushes near the side of the house and fence. Then I was really happy with the bumble bees until I found-out they were wood boring bees and they had made their nests in the wood under my roof and fence posts. I had to replace the fence and the wood under the roof. I also uprooted the rose bushes :( Just chalk it up to bad luck, you should be fine.
My wife planted a pollinator garden last year and I has a ton of fun photographing bees and butterflies. I had no idea it would attract so many insects. (Sadly, the hummingbirds were too skittish to come close when I was outside.)
This was surprising to us too - like, we knew there would be bugs, but there were so many. We had a particularly successful Amaranth that was basically a free standing ecosystem.
Some parasites of bees are not welcomed, other are very desired visitors. In the top list of most spectacular animals that you can attract to a backyard garden with its unique mix of metallic emeralds, cyan, golden pinks, indigo and magentas.
Is just a beautiful part of biodiversity.
Healthy bees evolved with parasites and are perfectly able to deal with them and clean themselves. Bees dosed with pesticides not so much.
Domestic bees don't visit insect hotels and solitary bees don't share the same parasites as the domestic ones. An apiculturist will need to apply products inside the honeycomb to keep the bees safe in any case.
Burning your insect hotel each year does not matter, the parasites are inside the beehive, not in the insect hotel. Is an advice that only helps the seller of insect hotels. Solitary bees don't live in the nests. They lay eggs, add food, close the door and never return.
A company in Switzerland has an interesting business model:
You buy a bee hotel (or bee hotels). They provide you with a tube containing a few fresh bee larvae every year before the wild bee season. After the season, you return the filled tubes. They remove parasites etc. and sell the resulting bee larvae for their commercial business with farmers etc. The biannual exchange is free. There is also minimal gamification because you can compare your success with other bee hotel owners from the same company.
