It is a weird linter, and it can definitely be misused. It saves me hours of work at least a couple times a month, however.

I have valid criticisms of statically typed languages, based around code patterns that are both expressive and efficient that are either difficult or impossible to implement in a statically typed language without “an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.”

Typescript, however, is different. Its type annotation functionality is not the same as a static type system, which means I get to keep all those things I like about dynamically typed languages while still having compile-time validation.

Flip-side, however, is the complete lack of runtime validation in typescript, and the fact that junior developers trip on that a lot. I would call that a real advantage of javascript (if not enough to stop me from using Typescript). Having no check at all is better than being convinced typescript is protecting you when it’s not.

I agree. And ML may never be able to cross that line.

That said, we’ve been calling it AI for decades now. It was weird enough to me when people started using ML more. I remember the AI classes I took in college, and the AI experts I met in my jobs. Then one day it was “just ML”. In most situations, it’s the same darn thing.

I think the idea is that someone buying a basic book on foraging mushrooms isn’t going to know who the experts are.

They’re going to google it, and they’re going to find AI-generated reviews (with affiliate links!) of AI-generated foraging books.

Now, if said AI is generating foraging books more accurate than humans, that’s fine by me. Until that’s the case, we should be marking AI-generated books in some clear way.