I'm really skeptical you can ship ~10 PRs a day per person unless these PRs are tiny pieces of one feature or all of them are tiny bugs that are each a 3 line fix that you could review instantly. Otherwise how can you confirm that the AI even did the right fix or feature correctly? That you even wanted that feature done that way?
I really don't think they can. I feel like if I rush a PR using AI, I can only just kinda hope the AI is good enough that my trust isn't misplaced. It becomes slightly less likely to be bad if you add a thorough AI review on top but it's just rolling the dice.
How does it compare performance wise? Feature parity? Can you spawn shells in the terminal pane or is there no terminal pane and you're expected to being your own multiplexer?
you get used to it almost instantly like within 1 hour of use. But I also have the OnePlus Open which has probably the best hidden crease you can buy besides Oppo which is just the company OnePlus came from
Isn't it wasteful to have everyone go off and remake the same software with slightly different bugs in it instead of one that fixes almost all of the bugs
Yeah even if the software is good there's just something sad about realizing you're reading AI generated text. Even if its proofread and factually correct it just comes across as cheap and low effort, moreso when the content gets duplicated in a pointless FAQ that just restates everything you just read
The FAQ technique is LLM/SEO crumbs because people usually search for questions, if you have the exact likely question text that maps to user's search you're more likely to rank. It's unfortunate but it works, like open mouth YouTube thumbnails.
It’s still hollow and cheap. I closed those sites immediately even before LLMs. You need to pay me to waste my time, not the other way around. Even if that’s using your then not-so-free app.
That’s not feedback, just a non-constructive opinion. As someone else wrote above, if you’re so precious about it then help out the devs of the project and submit design PRs.
Here is a constructive one then: delete it. It’s better for everyone. If I want to read AI slop about your open source code, I can ask LLMs directly. It’s cheaper for you, and everybody.
This is absurd. No one has an obligation to help anyone nor do they owe you any standard of help. Opinion on quality of output is constructive to the wise and an opportunity to scream "If you can do better than do it" for the small minded.
This is a pathetic take.
1) Life is short and shortcuts and avoiding work are not inherently the wrong path to take.
2) Is the code you've almost certainly had an LLM write for you in the past a sign that you have low moral character and let yourself down by taking shortcuts and avoiding work too?
Yes I filed a support ticket with them and explained that their system is broken and they just did not care. I explained how it was impossible for me to use it 3 times already as I've only made 2 chatgpt accounts EVER, and only recalling entering my phone number for one of the two chatgpt accounts. I told them that this issue locked me out of codex and chatgpt for work and they weren't willing to do anything about it. Totally useless support.
I ended up borrowing my gf's phone number just so I could get access for work. Ridiculous
I'm pretty sure the lemon lime game referred to in the article is supposed to be some trick where it always says you're wrong and you have to cheat (maybe in browser developer tools) to get a 7/7
