Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Monday, 16-Feb-2026 23:44:08 JST Rich Felker

   in reply to

   • Filippo Valsorda

   @filippo That's missing the point. Your colleagues understand there are consequences to fucking up, avoid doing it, and work to make things right if they do. The slop extruder just digs in and feeds you more slop.

   • Embed this notice
     Filippo Valsorda (filippo@abyssdomain.expert)'s status on Monday, 16-Feb-2026 23:44:10 JST Filippo Valsorda

     I wish that those surveys so often cited by InfoSec pundits that ask

     Do you fully trust AI output?
     Do you always verify AI output?

     also asked

     Do you fully trust your colleagues' output?
     Do you always verify your colleagues' output?

     Just to have comparative numbers, you know.

     Rich Felker repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Carlos Fdez Llamas (sirikon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 16-Feb-2026 23:44:36 JST Carlos Fdez Llamas

     in reply to

     • Filippo Valsorda

     @filippo A colleague is responsible for the output even when I'm the reviewer, AI is not.

     A colleague is expected to learn from its mistakes and grow in responsibilities, AI only improves if the big tech firm decides to retrain.

     Colleagues are very different from each other and each one has their own flaws and strengths when you try to trick them into doing something. There are like 5 AIs sharing 90% of the work and can be tricked by asking them to write a haiku.