Post #1327894

2026-02-18 05:26 UTC

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?

Replies (3)

@Gyroplast@pawb.social 2026-02-18 08:52

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".

Open ##1327937
@mcv@lemmy.zip 2026-02-18 09:03

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.

Open ##1327938
@Avicenna@programming.dev 2026-02-20 08:54

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.

Open ##1327939