Take some consolation in that there’s no precedental power in any ruling by the Roberts court. No future court will hold their writings as sacred when they aren’t even trying to be consistent.
It’s not much consolation when the very idea of “rule of law” is being so nakedly attacked from the top, but at least it’s something.
If AI actually adds value, it should be trivial to demonstrate that value-add in a way that passes scientific rigor.
The underlying problem is that we don’t have a good way to measure code value. Software quality is most closely coporable to a weird combination of scientific paper, mechanical diagnostic, and toy instructuon. And we don’t have good ways to measure those, either.
There was apparently one study from Stanford:
Note that the headline is misleading – stanford apparently trainded an AI model to “rate code” in a way that agreed with some of their staff and then ran that on a bunch of projects. The “good at simple and new, bad at complex and old” matches my intuition, but isn’t really a stronger test than counting minutes spent in a project or dollars spent on programming with or without AI.
And all AI output is slop. It’s just that for some things slop is good enough.
~Which really should be an argument more for discarding those things than boiling oceans to generate more of them, but capitalism loves doing wasteful things~
Texas is so obsessed with slavery that they:
We mark a federal holiday celebrating the end of slavery in June because Texas didn’t lose its slaves until the union occupation took them away, five and a half months after the 13th amendment was ratified.
The most eloquent proof that the US Civil War was fought over slavery may well be just that Texas joined the confederacy.