My research project, Writing With the Dead, has a fully funded PhD position available. Terribly exciting—and also with very nice people involved.
Come to Copenhagen. Do Grundtvig stuff. Wisen up.
#PhD #Grundtvig #ResearchIntegrity
Do repost, please.
| Topics | Security, networks, linux |
| Currently dabbling with | ansible, openbsd |
| Working with | students and pros |
| Annual family trip | #bornhack |
My research project, Writing With the Dead, has a fully funded PhD position available. Terribly exciting—and also with very nice people involved.
Come to Copenhagen. Do Grundtvig stuff. Wisen up.
#PhD #Grundtvig #ResearchIntegrity
Do repost, please.
I am struggling a bit with #githubactions. I want to be able to click "merge when checks pass", that requires that I specify which checks that must pass. These checks are by workflow.
I build and test multiple docker containers, and have a workflow for each. Making a workflow that includes everything is an option.
Must I make a master workflow?
there a trick to specifying check by name?
I get the sense that my thinking is wrong about how to structure github actions....
@tykling yes 😃
It is more a question if it is x10, x100 or (as I suspect) x1000 worse.
I found articles about how llm generated code compared to human written code, but nothing about abusing LLMs for tasks that "normal" scripts/programs could do.
@bert_hubert I'm starting to think in terms of process vs result. It seems to be well aligned with the author.
If only the end result is important (at some quality), AI could be a good tool. If the process and the associated learning is important, AI becomes potentially toxic and must be minimized.