I'm not sure if you got it, that inhumanely != inhumanly. Where inhumanely is without consideration for the human race, whereas the other is non-human-like.
> I'm not sure if you got it, that inhumanely != inhumanly. Where inhumanely is without consideration for the human race, whereas the other is non-human-like.
Note they're also synonyms, so the confusion is understandable:
The LLM itself doesn't, but agents can research, compare, add to their memory, and use that to narrow the results down to a probabilistically higher set of outputs; I have used an LLM for my own MRI results and it was nearly spot-on, verified by a subsequent visit to a specialist. YMMV as they say. But I do believe we are entering the era where LLMs are considering past interactions and long context windows to inform it of personal preferences and history in order to output more accurate results.
> you are saying this based on your own experience but YMMV, it is not universally true, specially not in developing countries
My experience of job postings advertised is exactly the same as everyone else's for the same filters.
This is not a "my personal feeling is that...", this is "I can't find an advertisement, posting or role that doesn't demand, instruct or promise that the successful candidate would be working closely with AI".
We're less than a year in, and I do not see dev jobs advertised on (for example) indeed.com with any sort of criteria omitting AI.
I have never used indeed.com before, but I just took a look and the very first software engineer posting I looked at doesn't make a single mention of AI. You have a penchant for making easily falsifiable assertions.
My company doesnt even let people use AI -- at least not agents (it's recently got blocked because someone learned about all the security team learned about all the vulnerabilities going around a few months ago [eyeroll]. I hired 3 developers in the last year and didn't mention AI in the job posting at all (it wasn't intentially left off... it's just that it has nothing to do with what you'll be doing, one of your goals, or related to driving business outcomes... its just a tool you can use if you want to [and it's unblocked by the corporate overlords]). So... there are companies out there. All the person is trying to say is making broad statements like that there's 0% of companies willing to prioritize quality/craftsmanship/maintainability (if that is the trade off... which is yet to be seen) over velocity. There obviously are places like that out there or there are entire companies or individual teams that prioritize that because the developer culture prioritizes that. Every team and situation is different.
Technically it is a a possible infinite sentence, as it can mean both "terrible" and "bottom", hence the sentence would be "terrible terrible terrible terrible bottom", which is colloquially valid.
