Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”
So do you want studies that show they produce pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the state of software? Have you installed the vibe-coded Windows patches? Looked at the horrific slop overflowing on GitHub?
LLMs are fast as coding assistants. Fast doesn’t mean good. The drop in quality over the last year or so has been nothing short of shocking. And I’ve had multiple vibe-coders tell me my mistake is looking at the code, which they no longer do.
so you knew what you posted was wrong and posted it anyway just to virtue signal?
What I posted was correct.
it wasn’t but we’ll move on
Let’s not. I’d like you to tell me what I got wrong. I described the output of LLMs as “a bunch of pablum [which means ‘trite, insipid, or simplistic writing or speech’] that sounds convincing and sycophantic[.]”
So do you want studies that show they produce pablum, studies that show their output sounds plausible and convincing even when it’s wrong, or studies that show they’re trained for sycophancy?
No because that’s your argument, to disprove that it outputs more than pablum you literally just have to use it
I mean the explosion in its use for coding alone kills your argument
Are you kidding me? Have you seen the state of software? Have you installed the vibe-coded Windows patches? Looked at the horrific slop overflowing on GitHub?
LLMs are fast as coding assistants. Fast doesn’t mean good. The drop in quality over the last year or so has been nothing short of shocking. And I’ve had multiple vibe-coders tell me my mistake is looking at the code, which they no longer do.