I've found it detrimental to quality because people at my workplace are now submitting code changes in languages they don't really understand (like in multithreaded C++ code). The time they saved is taken from my time having to explain all the problems with their code.
My brother was identified as "gifted" and I was identified as having a "learning disability". He got pulled out of class to work with other gifted kids on special projects (like computer programming in the 90s). I got pulled out of science class to be taught remedial grammar and receive one-on-one help with math. This made me feel like I was dumber than the other kids and that I had to study hard to compensate. Meanwhile, my brother had everyone telling him how smart and gifted he is.
We both went to university, but he barely got accepted and nearly dropped out. I think I did a lot better at university because I was already accustomed to needing to study.
Many years later I learned that there have been studies about this "praise for effort versus praise for intelligence" dynamic.
Does it really matter? If the article is poor quality, then it is poor quality. It doesn't matter if it was written by a person or an LLM. I'm more annoyed how so many articles waste time quoting things people say on social media.
At this point it's like using the urinal when you're directly beside an ocean full of piss. Dealing with it at an individual level has mostly failed as it would take coordination 'before' people click on the link, and enough people to realize it's junk before they submit it to HN. Being that at least 91 people upvoted this it seems like that isn't working.
maybe it isn't working because we haven't yet gotten used to detecting AI articles.
we can still change that if most of us decide to flag such articles, although, instead of a generic flag i'd like an AI flag or tag (similarly to how we tag older articles with the year). then everyone can decide on their own if it is worth their time.
Can't speak for GP, but in the 5-6 months or so I've been using it, most of my issues have been with keyboard navigation breaking or not working in some of the apps. It's gotten better with regular updates though and has been pretty solid. Other stability issues seem to have been deeper as since switching to a mainline kernel install (6.16.x) I haven't noticed any deep issues.
Pop has kept kernel updates well ahead of Ubuntu though, I just switched sooner than they seem to have.
it doesn't seem to handle multiple monitors very gracefully yet, at least when I used it & on my setup. Felt a little bit slower than gnome and less stable across the board.
For example, the top-bar UI doesn't render certain app icons properly, which was driving me crazy. Maybe it's a settings/config thing. My opinion is if cosmic isn't a drop-in replacement for gnome with extra bells and whistles, im not going to use it.
For all I know, it could be a lot better than gnome at this point. But for a daily driver that I'm working in, I need the stability of gnome over the 'cool factor' of cosmic.
I really liked the direction it is heading and will be using it eventually. Worth installing and trying out!
reply