I think the number gives a false sense of accuracy. Like using fifteen digits of pi to calculate an orbital path even though you system can't model every mass in the system and thus have way higher variance regardless.
I am numbers on, but only because I don't care enough to turn it off.
That's not being neurotypical. That's just having poor communication skills.
Based on the actual women in my life, "blame partner for own communication failures" is the divergence rather than the norm. Regardless of what shallow media portrays.
If we're mucking the alphabet, though, we really should bring back the thorn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
(If for no other reason than to also bring back the you/thou formal/informal split so I get fewer stares when I point out that the best translation of Exodus 20:13 is really more like "hey, man, no murders!")
If AI actually adds value, it should be trivial to demonstrate that value-add in a way that passes scientific rigor.
The underlying problem is that we don't have a good way to measure code value. Software quality is most closely coporable to a weird combination of scientific paper, mechanical diagnostic, and toy instructuon. And we don't have good ways to measure those, either.
There was apparently one study from Stanford:
Note that the headline is misleading -- stanford apparently trainded an AI model to "rate code" in a way that agreed with some of their staff and then ran that on a bunch of projects. The "good at simple and new, bad at complex and old" matches my intuition, but isn't really a stronger test than counting minutes spent in a project or dollars spent on programming with or without AI.
And all AI output is slop. It's just that for some things slop is good enough.
~Which really should be an argument more for discarding those things than boiling oceans to generate more of them, but capitalism loves doing wasteful things~
Humans living is the whole point of civilization, though. We don't need the LLM to pay for the techbro carbon footprint or olichsrch child abuse, so we should similarly exclude the human's base sustensnce and survival from their budget.
You can include the human writer's coffee, music, and writing snacks / cigarettes.
I don't think that was cgi. It think it was stop motion and puppetry.
(Or, cgi that was supposed to look like stop motion and puppetry.)