5 ms·
The obviously used too much AI, I stopped after 2 paragraphs
by dlopes7 3mo ago
The obviously used too much AI, I stopped after 2 paragraphs
- tzs 3mo agoThe first two paragraphs are > On June 15, Oracle engineer Lois Foltan confirmed what a good chunk of the industry had stopped believing: JEP 401: Value Classes and Objects will be integrated into the main OpenJDK repository and is targeting JDK 28. > The change is so large that the remaining committers were asked to hold off on bigger commits during the integration. The pull request alone adds over 197 thousand lines of code across 1,816 files. What in those paragraphs is obviously AI?
- yubblegum 3mo agoThese days I'm having second thoughts about pictures that I am pretty certain can't be AI but just have that look. It's strange but I've noticed it happening more and more.
- Raphael_Amiard 3mo agoI mean I’m only answering that because you’re asking, nothing set me off personally there, but now that you ask: « The pull request alone adds over 197 thousand lines of code across 1,816 files. » I noticed that both Claude and GPT are fond of those kind of stupid accounting statements that don’t mean a lot in and of themselves, but look impressive in a « wow numbers » way. Which is kind of ironic since counting remains one of their weak points
- afiori 3mo agoI understand ai hate but I would rather avoid a future where everybody talks in purposely weird and unstructured sentences to avoid being similar to ai By necessity a lot of people write very similarly to how llm do
- rezonant 3mo agoYeah its definitely inconsistent level of specificity. It's "roughly" 197 thousand files, and yet at that scale a human would call it 200 thousand lines of code, and then an exact count of files at 1,816 instead of a similar level of estimation. For instance I might write this "The pull request alone adds nearly 200 thousand lines of code spanning almost two thousand files", or even better just "The pull request alone adds nearly 200 thousand lines of code" because really who cares how those are broken up into files.
- tzs 3mo agoAs a human (as far as I know...) there is a decent chance I'd write it like that, depending on the exact numbers. It said "over 197 thousand". That's what I'd probably say for a number in [197000, 197999], or maybe "under 198 thousand depending on where it is in that range. Saying "nearly 200 thousand" is still 3 digits so doesn't save any space over 197 or 198, and I think with it only being 3 digits most people will assume only the last digit is rounded. 200 ending in a string of 0s does suggest it might be rounded to the nearest 10 or nearest 100, but it just could easily not be. I'd almost certainly fully write out 1816. If it were common to spell out groups below 1000 like 100s and were going to that I might write it as something like "just over 18 hundred" or "almost 19 hundred", but I almost never see anyone use grouping sizes of less than 1000.
- 725686 3mo agoI'm tired of people jumping in to point out "AI, AI". The article is very good and informative. That is the only important thing. Geez.
- robotresearcher 3mo agoNo, it’s not the only important thing. The complaints about it should tell you that. People care about provenance a lot. Whether it’s a drawing my daughter did of her mother, a Picasso napkin sketch, a worn 1960s Stratocaster, or an blog essay, the provenance is value on top of the correctness of the item.
- xp84 3mo agoStrange comparison, the Strat has sentimental and historical value. I don’t collect and cherish articles about Java.
- robotresearcher 3mo agoYep, I used an example where the provenance value was obviously large to make it very clear.
- aboardRat4 3mo ago>The article is very good and informative. But you don't know which parts of it are true.