333
Morge continvoucly (discuss.tchncs.de)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Ephera@lemmy.ml 51 points 2 days ago

To be honest, what I'm most mad about isn't the typoes, it's that someone generated this image and figured, yeah alright, that will clear things up.

On some level you want to believe that even if someone does not come up with a proper concept for a visualization, that they still check what the AI shat out, so that it's at the very least not conceptually wrong and not confusing.

This image isn't just shitty, it's actively worse than having no visualization. They could've generated that, chuckled, and not used it. Just how do you blunder your perception check so badly that you decide to include it anyways?

[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 4 points 12 hours ago

That is likely because depending on AI makes you gradually less and less likely to cross-check and verify stuff. For some the whole appeal is the belief that they can get the answer/product they want in a second, ready to go out of the box and without having to spend any mental energy.

[-] Gyroplast@pawb.social 30 points 2 days ago

There is the decades-old adage:

Incorrect documentation is worse than no documentation.

That's why I never comment my code. The documentation is in the .h files. The "h" means "help".

[-] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

In my company the h means "haha, what were you expecting?"

[-] ZomieChicken@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago

In a proper PnPRPG/Tabletop RPG game, a truly spectacular blunder feels like a success to the person who failed. Walk into a bar and critfail both your Communications check, and the "Oh crap, I failed that badly. Can I save this by doing ______?" follow-up Communications check? You think you did fine, but now the entire bar thinks you are a truly crazy person, and treat you with respect only because they think you're going to shiv them in the neck if they get out of line.

[-] mcv@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago

That is exactly the problem. I understand people using AI to make things. I don't understand blindly publishing AI slop without verifying it's correct.

Everybody using genAI has to understand that AI will often be wrong, and frequently ridiculous, and that it's up to you to ensure that what you deliver is correct.

And because nobody likes to review other people's work (most people are terrible and sloppy reviewers), it's better to put yourself in the center: have AI propose ideas or review the result, but you make the thing. That's how you ensure everything passes through your hands.

this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
333 points (98.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

29880 readers
459 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS