42firehawk

Unless something is fucked with my instance (and my alt that I checked to make sure on Lemmy.zip) I don’t see 4 distinct criteria? Your initial comment was “fuck religion” with no criterion. The comment this chain is off of asks if the Episcopal church makes supernatural claims that go against facts and reality, which is one claim that was responded to.

I can’t find the other 3 criteria unless there’s some form of pedantics I’m not catching.

In terms of the one claim that was addressed with a simple “episcopals follow science” is an adequate answer in my eyes from alders razor. You claimed without any evidence that the church doesn’t believe in fact, then OP responded saying that members of the church tend to follow science and that spirituality on its own isn’t wrong as anecdotal evidence. Its basically nuh uh because no further evidence is needed to refute no evidence, similar to saying no if you claimed democrats ate babies.

At least from my instance this is the only direct claim you’ve made?

A computer can never be held accountable, therefore computers must never make a management decision.

Rules about submissions and determining if a pr helps a project is a management decision. AI or automated tools can reject a PR if it fails to meet a human made rule (like failing to compile or breaking code standards) but accepting a pr to merge? That should be a human.

To add to the other response - it is much more difficult to work with Ai to debug inconsistent issues or similar unless you can understand the code and step through with a debugger to check for race conditions or similar.

Recently I was working with an Ai tool for some c code that depending on machine ran wildly differently. The Ai was unable to identify any issues, and kept recommending fixes for hardcoding values or similar that I had to revert. The fix ended up needing to use valgrind to create a different enough environment to see how a race condition was made to properly have one async call delay for the other.

AI can be powerful, and humans can be dumb. But if the code was human made, I would not have needed 3 hours to find a problem, and I wouldn’t have tried to turn to AI for a simple fix because I’d know what I was looking for to start with.

But you’re forgetting the key difference that makes it so much worse - we can fix human mistakes especially if we can talk to the human to figure out how. With an llm we have no external reference, only poorly designed code where the comments are there to guide the writing, not describe what was written. So it’s much harder to debug an output, and the llm cannot be trusted to clean it up either.