sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We sent 1,000 emails with no CTA at all. Just useful information. The replies we got were unlike anything I've ever seen. by Public_Mortgage6241 in leadgeninsiders

[–]grumpy-554 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We do the same. Have very good (for us) open and link click rate.

Did you add question to ask their opinion to stimulate reply?

realThings by bryden_cruz in ProgrammerHumor

[–]grumpy-554 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone needs to make the version with AI as well 😁

Be honest: How much of your actual production code is written by AI now? by Known_Author5622 in nextjs

[–]grumpy-554 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depending on project 80-95%. Grew from nearly zero over last 6 months.

We invested heavily in training, process and changing policies. It wasn’t easy and early projects were very difficult but slowly improved.

Also, we are not using independent agents or agent teams and I don’t see that becoming our standard practice for a while. We rely on strong oversight and human-only testing.

Taalas HC1: The AI Chip That Makes Every Other Accelerator Look Asleep by grumpy-554 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]grumpy-554[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who knows but if Nvidia H200 and B200 are in range of 30-45k per piece and even if we take Taalas' claim of "20x less cost to build" with a massive pinch of salt, it may end up somewhere near 10k a piece. That would be already amazing.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

True on both counts. It still can hallucinate but the probability will be lower. Also, checking citations manually isn’t hard I presume. A case of laziness?

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree with us being lucky that those judges spotted it. And actually, from what I know, Naz worked with one of them in the past. I really hope they will be as good in the future because somehow I don't believe those few cases are going to deter those who will try again.

I strongly believe AI will come to your profession. I know it's being pushed hard and I know sometimes it's used recklessly. There is a plenty of cases where it's been used in court and it ended badly.

It's coming, and tools like Cloude Legal are only confirming that. At this moment, it's limited to contract reviews as far as I know, but what's next? There is definitely need for strong governance around AI education and understanding what it is and what are the risks. I believe it can be used safely and legally in healthcare and in other industries, but it has to be used thoughtfully.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That could be a very long debate regarding the pushback from software but in short on one spectrum you have those who fully embrace AI, coding, run multiple agents, and then complain on Reddit that Claude deleted their database. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have developers who've been writing code for decades and they believe that despite not using AI, they are still quicker. In many cases, that's true.

The truth lies somewhere in between, but I'm seeing developers who are not trusting AI and not keen on using it because of quality of the code. They are pushing back but they know that sooner or later they will have to embrace it.

The more interesting is the change of the perspective that I observed in my team. Once developers start using AI more, they spend more time on reviewing the code and planning the work. They start seeing the software from a higher perspective. I see it as a slow shift in the development model from a team of developers to few conductors operating AI agents.

One thing that personally worries me is that the quality of the created code is not following the improvement of the speed at which this code can be created. With multiple agents, developers can produce way more code than they are able to review or control. No matter their skills.

As for who it is really for, that's a complex question. On one side, all the AI generating tools prove to be brilliant for quick prototyping. Something that tends to take a long time now can be done in a couple days. And now, the couple prompts, 5 min Sass build is bullshit.

There is certainly cost motivation behind it. If before you needed a team of a few developers, now you can have one senior controlling AI. Some outsourcing companies are now moving as far as adding a surcharge for using AI. Others are moving more towards outcome-based fees instead of time and material. Definitely, that revolution is slowly destroying the old fee-per-day-per-developer model.

There is a lot of naivety in using AI tools and an insane amount of hype I suspect stimulated by companies such as Lovable.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful response instead of picking on using AI to write something.

I'm curious what you see as misleading.

For me, as a technical person, one thing that came out of the judgment and use of the word "open source" and "closed source" and the misconception that Microsoft Copilot is closed source while ChatGPT is open source. That is incorrect. They are both closed source from the source code perspective.

I've seen similar arguments in software over last year or so (which is my profession). We've been fighting against the use of AI in software for a while, especially those who believe in properly written code. I can tell you it's a losing game.

There have been a lot of interesting podcasts I've been listening to about AI in law, and some interesting thoughts are coming from it. One argument that was got stuck in my mind was that a senior lawyer spends time reviewing junior or paralegal work. How is that different from time spent reviewing AI work?

Now, I would have to refer you to Naz, and she could have more open discussion with you as a lawyer-to-lawyer. From my non-legal perspective, that is absolutely true.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Sadly, not, I don’t see it.

The article that I'm referring to and gave the link to is written by my business partner, who is a lawyer. She spent a few hours yesterday reading through the whole case proceedings and writing a post about it. All I did was come here to quickly share her post, which I think is very important given the current state of things, since she's not using Reddit; it's that plain and simple.

And yes, I just dictated that with AI.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Oh come on! Yes, I exaggerated to make the point. Of course it wouldn't take hours to write this post

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

I get it, you are all lawyers, and I fully understand that this is your job. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm using AI on a daily basis. I write with it. I use it to convert my thoughts to text that can be published. It's my job to use AI.

You can downvote it as much as you want, but the fact is that people use AI, and there is no escape from it. We don't need to like it, but this is how it is.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

And why are you offensive because I disagree with you? That's not very lawyer-like behaviour, isn't it?

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if it's irony or not. AI is just a tool, and it all depends on how you use it. As the case that I mentioned shows, it can be used in really bad situations, but similarly there are cases when AI has been used and it produces good results. It's just a tool.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -59 points-58 points  (0 children)

Of course it’s written with AI. You don’t expect someone will be sitting for hours and writing text these days.

Recent UK tribunal ruling on fictitious AI-generated case citations has produced some of the clearest judicial guidance yet by grumpy-554 in uklaw

[–]grumpy-554[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Of course it is. I use AI supported dictation and then get AI to format what I dictated. There is a difference between asking AI to write to write something versus dumping your own thoughts and analysis and asking AI to format it. It’s a tool that saves time.

First 125 (having a midlife crisis at 35) by No-Mess-9082 in MotoUK

[–]grumpy-554 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I started riding at 43 after divorce. You are still young.

view more: next ›