In the late 90s, I remember everyone freaking out about Y2K. I knew how to write software, and I thought I understood the problem (and from a purely technical standpoint, I did). I wrote the whole thing off as people making a mountain of a molehill because surely no competent modern programmer would make a mistake like that, right? This opinion seemed validated when the year 2000 came and went without any apparent major incident.
Thing is, I was young, inexperienced, and naïve. I didn't understand a few things:
- How often hastily-written good-enough-for-now code finds its way into production systems in order to meet a deadline (also, how long legacy code tends to stick around (I'm looking at you, COBOL)).
- How much work went on behind the scenes scrambling to fix the problem before it happened.
Now, with LLMs, we have a way to generate such code at scale, and I can't help but wonder about the price we're going to pay for it down the line, all in the name of shipping code on an arbitrary deadline.
James Endres Howell
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •Jonathan Lamothe likes this.
Strypey
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •> Setting aside my typical argument about how a "chemical free" product is objective nonsense
... which would be willfully missing the point since there's an implied 'industrial', or maybe 'petroleum-derived', before any such usage of 'chemical'. As with software freedom, the point being local reproducibility. But I'm sure you knew that. Moving on ...
> you literally just made lye, which is a pretty harsh chemical
True that. Fight Club has a pretty good demonstration of just how harsh.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Strypey • •@Strypey
The fact that you had to add "or maybe" demonstrstes my point there. I hate imprecise language. It causes unnecessary confusion, but I digress...
Strypey
in reply to Jonathan Lamothe • • •> I hate imprecise language. It causes unnecessary confusion
Fair enough. But jargon is a standard feature of English. Many words and phrases have specific meanings in particular contexts. If the context is ignore, then a lot of language use will seem much more imprecise than it actually is.
Eg 'industrial' is commonly used as shorthand for 'powered by or derived from fossil fuels' in environmentalist discourse. Assuming a more general definition, prunes meaning from the discourse.
(1/2)
Jonathan Lamothe likes this.
Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •This is one of the many reasons why the Titter-style microposting medium was probably a bad idea.
A group of people who are familiar with each other can use jargon terms in context, and add clarification when they know some participants are new to their specialist usage. When the potential reader is 'anyone', context collapse is inevitable.
(2/2)
Jonathan Lamothe likes this.
Jonathan Lamothe
in reply to Strypey • •