Comment by jdw64
16 hours ago
This is absurdly well written.
I don’t know how someone takes the familiar anxiety around AI replacing developers and turns it into something this beautiful and funny.
Once again, the programming industry has robbed literature of a potential Nobel Prize candidate.
As another commenter implied, the title a reference to this - https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks. Which is an incredible read as well
> You knew. And you signed off anyway. Because the alternative was losing the job, and the job was the mortgage, and the school fees, and the visa, and the version of yourself who'd fix it later once things stabilized.
I felt the pang in my bones reading this. All of us peons are just wading through this brave new world trying to do what we know is right but ultimately having no choice but to give in to life's needs.
[dead]
> anxiety around AI replacing developers
For the benefit of people who don't absorb the entire article (spoiler alert):
>> … AI didn't take our jobs. Greed did. …
[flagged]
Can we not pretend that AI can meaningfully classify whether something was written by AI?
If it’s Claude - I’d love to see the prompts. This doesn’t read like AI to me. Lots of active voice. Shorter sentences.
Not saying those are signals of human writing but in my experience AI writing is verbose.
26% isn't high and it's concentrated towards the end, so it could be the author just used it to revise some later paragraphs.
26% means not ai 3/4 times...
Would you accuse someone of murder with 26% matching evidence?
26% AI generated? What does that even mean? How is Pangram arriving at that figure?
26% of the sentences tripped the detection threshold for their classifier. That isn't a detection probability on the entire text.
You may be right. But this feeling is mine. Haha.