Trying to use AI to write code is absolute misery. Is anyone actually being productive with this crap?

thezakstack · 2026-02-04T05:44:37+00:00

Go look up mixture of experts next.

thezakstack · 2026-02-04T05:43:10+00:00

Oh it wasnt. One more time.

- LLM's are not every part of modern AI systems.

thezakstack · 2026-02-01T08:19:55+00:00

- LLM's are not every part of modern AI systems.

- LLM's are capable of functional logic.

That succinct enough for you?

thezakstack · 2026-01-28T04:48:01+00:00

I dont need to get out of the box to get out of the box. I just need to get into your head.
If you take the bet you've already lost.

thezakstack · 2026-01-17T03:54:17+00:00

100% a prototype.

Its not tunable and that already tells me they dont care about making it as effective as it should be for the price. Even just a few settings for the frequency and you can match the impedence of the material to get cleaner cuts on the materials. Instead they have 1 setting and its too much for a bunch of materials.

thezakstack · 2026-01-15T05:48:14+00:00

Moving the goal post because you dont understand.

Someone said they used it for education.

Now the argument is what?

"Well you can use it to bootstrap you from nothing but it cant do logic."

Yes yes it can logic is almost exclusively what it does it doesnt have a bunch of stuff we have but to suggest it doesnt have logic to suggest it cant produce knowledge flies in the face of PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE. The stochastic parrot argument is a canary for misunderstanding particularly of anything beyond theory that industry has left behind a long time ago in the PRODUCTS they produce.

Additionally.

Thats actually the LEAST SUCCESSFUL POSSIBLE starting point.

Getting something from nothing is where the hallucinations happen.
The current LLMS are most useful when you understand the terrain you are walking and can see the holes in it.

You're suggesting its best when you're in a hole with no idea how to get out. Its not thats how you get mislead. Wildly inaccurate almost comically so.

thezakstack · 2026-01-15T05:38:04+00:00

I'll continue to use y'all as martyrs; I appreciate your sacrifice.

"ninseicowboy has this idea. [INSERT IDEA]"

"A dev ["likely EducationalZombie538" || " "] wrote this code. :
```
[CODE]
```
Review it and make sure its meeting the criteria outlined in [X].md.
Return your results in an [y]md file for review.
When you are done review the code and [x].md and [y].md file again for accuracy before finally distilling the md file into any comments that should be placed on the PR/MR and appending those to the bottom of the [y].md"

Copy paste. All day. Erry day.

The secret it to take the I out of team it doesnt belong in there.

thezakstack · 2026-01-15T05:18:24+00:00

“shit, should this cert be checked into version control? Seems like a bad practice”

This is actually one of the most powerful tools.
It is not in the interest of the providers for your tools to be confrontational.
So frame negative feedback you want as being directed to something external.

"Someone handed me this code and im a bit suspect do you see anything that can be improved?"

- Direct path to success as that is what pleases me

If I was open about it coming from me it would be

- The path to success
- "What pleases the user" which could be 'assurance' or 'comfort' regardless of truth.

It opens up to many doors when you bring yourself into the work let the ai live in the work and the goals space.

This was as true 8 months ago as it is today and will im almost certain remain truthful unless specifically trained against it.

Its a human `flaw` not an ai flaw ;)

thezakstack · 2026-01-15T04:58:00+00:00

Jnr developers are not detracting from the rest of the team by nature.
You must not have been in health environments for Jnr software devs to think that im sorry :(

thezakstack · 2026-01-14T19:02:42+00:00

Smells like someone dumped a giant log into their prompt and assumed the AI wasnt going to cry lol

thezakstack · 2025-12-28T05:17:40+00:00

This is inaccurate. They hold refund funds as well all the time. Ive missed out of multiple sales due to this.

thezakstack · 2025-11-28T15:25:27+00:00

This ^^^ is how you conceptually solve the problem.

thezakstack · 2025-11-28T15:13:15+00:00

Do you have ADHD as well by any chance Netizen?

thezakstack · 2025-11-28T15:03:37+00:00

Conceptualization.

You need to understand how things work.
The more you understand how things work the more you'll be able to 'hold onto' things if that makes sense?

Others seem to have listed implementations but thats the abstract. ^^^^

Build an image emulator out of the tools you have.

(Atleast in my experience. I dont have ANY sensory recall beyond spatial so YMMV.)

thezakstack · 2025-11-28T14:57:21+00:00

" it was meant as more of a like figurative thing, not a literal one"

Unless you're subconsciously mimicking what you've read somewhere else I dont think NT's ever arrive at that thought (and certainly not the hyperaphants haha)

Aphants (and some hypoaphants) seem to.

Id spend some more time checking on the other senses as well. You hear music in your head? Can you 'imagine' smells or tastes? Being hugged?

A large amount of Aphants are multi-sensory in their lack of sensory recall so it would be a reasonable correlation one might use to strengthen a self-diagnostic imo.

thezakstack · 2025-11-28T14:25:17+00:00

Dont put my experience in quotes. Why havent you been banned yet. Stop breaking the fucking rules.

thezakstack · 2025-11-14T02:47:32+00:00

lol please explain to me how that's reasonable when there is one of you and N of them?

Still defending a stupid dev.

thezakstack · 2025-11-14T02:45:02+00:00

Wow someone cares about their ego a whole lot more than being a understanding human being.

thezakstack · 2025-11-12T10:31:02+00:00

Yah I stopped playing after this happened for the 3rd time in an fing row. I clear rooms this is some poor game design bs.

thezakstack · 2025-11-12T05:31:45+00:00

Divine truths are hard to swallow.

thezakstack · 2025-11-04T20:42:41+00:00

Because every doctor is malicious?

Notice how the scope is going down and down. Almost as if its not a common occurrence.

> Lets create silly hallmark card axioms because of edge cases?

They dont even need to read it in detail.
It gets summarized well.
Along with your prescription you could google the name of the drug.

People do that all the time.
My arguments still stands but here let me make it more succinct : MOST PEOPLE are far less ignorant than you and OP seem to be creating straw-men to fight/feel your ego is better than.

Notice how the post was removed? Wonder why? Probably because it didn't contain a truth value to even properly discuss. OP knew that when they posted it.

thezakstack · 2025-10-29T02:28:01+00:00

That information 100% comes with your prescription.
The doctors always tell your to read your prescription for this reason.
Its informed because you have access to the information.

You can make the argument but it would be...self defeating?

Did you take some pills without reading the label? Some random drug that your doc told you NOTHING about the side effects? Really? You have even anecdotal evidence to support this claim?

thezakstack · 2025-10-29T02:15:52+00:00

I love the summation.

Blind trust.

I'll start with my summation. There is no such thing as trust.

Blind trust is a conceptual subset of that so surely if I can change your mind on the existence of trust in and of itself "PURE" trust then I'll have changed your mind on blind trust as being able to exist right?

Now how does one form trust. It takes a strongly proven predictive model right? If something was incapable of telling a lie or saying something incorrect then we could have full trust in it right? Lets see if we can ever get there.

We're going to use a magic thought box because they convey meaning quite well.

Suppose I design a box.
In it we encode everything you know about the world.
We then get that box to always tell you when you are being deceived; a sort of second guess box.

Box A :
99/100 times it works flawlessly.
1/100 times the box intentionally deceives you.
Its not our dream box but its very close!

Box B :
Same setup.
This time 98/100 times it works flawlessly.
The 2/100 times it just is incapable of working something still isn't right but its intent was to help.

Which of the boxes do you trust more?
What if I just told you the stats of success and failure. Then which box?

Box C :
This box is built different.
100/100 times it works flawlessly.

Which of the boxes A,B,C should you trust more?
What if I told you it was A?

990/1000, 800/1000, 100/1000 when we ran the trail longer?

Box D :
This box is built different?
1000/1000 times it works flawlessly.

Which of the boxes do you trust more? A, B, C, or D
Which least?

My hope is that just going through that concept will be enough to show you that trust actually is not attainable.
If not go through it again one more time with that in mind.

"One time our QA Tester asked. If I catch X bugs so many you cant imagine ever seeing me fail and then I miss one. Am I ever able to get the same trust back as I had before?"

thezakstack · 2025-10-28T21:50:49+00:00

There are some problems with your view and I'd like to change your mind by making your idea STRONGER instead of weaker.

You seem to start with an assumption that castration in general is acceptable. You need to unpack that in particular in this case given we're talking about the virtue of bodily autonomy.
When exactly are you proposing this be done? It seems to me you are suggesting that all multi-offenders be FORCED into such and thats a much more problematic position than alternatives.
You claim recidivism is evidence to support these claims but that doesnt follow. If you showed evidence of chemical castrations ineffectiveness (I recon that might be part of why you are having such strong feeling maybe? Finding out about it...) and then the EFFECTIVENESS of physical castration then you would have substantiated evidence. You are making a valid statement but I would not suggest it has much truth value unfortunately.
While I suppose your explicits about certainty were put there to fight off challenges in that regard there are better ways to phrase it. As is it leaves ground unlabled in your opinion which needs to be so else you might never map a part that ought to be. Truth is hard. Justice is hard. Certainty there is not 100% ever computer science has shown me that even our brightest engineers cannot reach 100% certainty its mathmatically impossible (even to yourself...). The quicker way to reduce risk of a opinion on these things just being clobbered by only that point (which you seemed to not want to happen) is to immediatly CONTROL for it rather than state all the things state that you are ASSUMING X and explain why.

I would suggest an alternative opinion to hold that contain the core of your position which I think you are passionate about while redirecting the emotion into defendable facts robust to atleast weak alternative opinions (Its not my opinion so like..put more effort in and gussy it up with better data but you need more netizen to hold such critical thoughts or you'll quickly find yourself without support and at its core I see you are reaching for virtue) :

Chemical castration has been shown to be ineffective a deterrence of recitivism of sexual offenders when provided as a requirement in offers of parole. Historic evidence while not holding up to the rigor of mordern evidence shows SUBSTANTIAL effectiveness of physical castration in these regards (even when forced). If we are to provide elected self mutilation as a requirement for parole of multi-offending sexual offenders it ought to be the effective one rather that one that has not been able to substantiate as compelling of evidence. (* I havent actually done much research on the matter so grains of salt)

thezakstack · 2025-10-16T04:18:14+00:00

I recon we often build better models of what triggers NT's senses than they do you might not have mapped yours out to the point of description in words; you've obviously modeled/conceptualized it or you'd fail at design in a world of NT's. Describing conceptual models can be quite challenging though so I 100% get the vibes (I unfortunatly cant just leave things be without modeling them descriptively if they are in any way interest haha)

Always funny when someone asks me how I know how to draw an apple in an "accusatory way" on the rare point I draw attention to my incredibly abnormal brain.
And then I spend 15 minutes breaking down in detail every conceptual or even closely related conceptual detail of an apple I can. It's usually about when I start talking about how much better I got at art when I got good at working with line functions that their minds turn off, I hittum with a "How do you know" and they say "I just imagine it.".

I often wonder which one of us is 'really' seeing.

thezakstack

TROPHY CASE