Is it just me or is everyone who absolutely loves AI just painfully below average?

https://lemmy.ca/post/62061142

Is it just me or is everyone who absolutely loves AI just painfully below average? - Lemmy.ca

Like, every AI generated thing I’ve seen, when viewed from the eyes of someone who actually knows what they’re doing, is at best below average. Maybe some things aren’t quite as bad as the general “AI slop”, but of the things I’m actually experienced in (code and art), I just see so many amateur mistakes in everything AI. Regarding art, AI can make really visually appealing things, but it gets the details wrong. That’s something that a below average artist does. And regarding code, it’s the same thing. Overall, it has the appearance of decent code, but it gets the details wrong, just like a below average dev. (Probably about the level of a high school senior or college freshman.) I’m not super experienced at writing, but I can also tell that it’s not very good at that. The stories it writes just aren’t compelling, but I’m not experienced enough to tell you why. And the same with music. It’s just below average, but I couldn’t tell you why. I’m not trying to sound elitist by saying this, but I’ve noticed people who aren’t very good at these things tend to praise how good the AI is. So, is it just me, or are the big fans of AI just below average at whatever the AI is doing?

You people are going to get so left behind 🤷‍♂️. The smugness of this post 🤣.
The funny thing is they and I had this conversation earlier.
Vim's lead maintainer has fully lost his goddamn mind - Lemmy.World

Related: > This is in a PR where Shougo, another long-time contributor, communicates entirely in walls of unparseable AI slop text: https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413 [https://github.com/vim/vim/pull/19413] >> Thank you for the detailed feedback! I’ve addressed all the issues: >> >> Thank you for the feedback! I agree that following the Vim 8+ naming convention makes sense. >> >> Thank you for the feedback on naming! >> >> Thanks for the suggestion! After thinking about this more, I believe repeat_set() / repeat_get() is the right choice: >> >> Thank you for the feedback. A brief clarification. https://hachyderm.io/@AndrewRadev/116176001750596207 [https://hachyderm.io/@AndrewRadev/116176001750596207] @[email protected] [/u/[email protected]]