> Granted, higher attraction affords more opportunity to develop those skills
I think this is largely a distraction from the direct effect. For any level of social skill, good-looking people at that level are perceived much more positively than others at the same level.
The question of the causal effect between physical attractiveness and social skill is interesting, though. There are plausible stories both ways, imo: your version, and the contrary one saying that pretty people coast on their looks and the rest of us have to try harder to be interesting or appealing in other ways.
(It's also hard to fully separate the skills from the looks, because the same behaviours that work for a good-looking person might backfire terribly for someone at the other end of the scale. Do we say those two people are equally socially skilled, or the pretty person is more skilled because they chose a strategy that works in their context and the other person didn't?)
> >if a knife is not needed – such as when eating pasta – the fork can be held in the right hand
> I mean it can be, but its fairly uncommon
So the norm is that if you're eating one-handed, you use your non-dominant hand? That seems really counterintuitive to me; is it because you're so used to having the fork in the non-dominant hand that it feels awkward the other way? Which hand do you use when eating with a spoon?
Spoons always go in the right hand (eg fork and spoon), but yes I'd say people usually use the fork in the non dominant hand. Fork in the right hand is slightly 'uncouth', possibly due to its american associations
I think you're framing this behaviour too generously. Laziness is one thing, lack of integrity is another, and this seems to be a straightforward case of cheating and lying.
I think it's just numbers. When one person errs it's a fault of character. When most people err, we call it a systematic fault. Why are most people overweight for the first time in history? Do most people lack the good character to restrict their diet? You could argue yes, however appeals to character won't actually solve the problem.
No way! Code is whatever defines the behavior of the program unambiguously, or as close to unambiguously as makes little difference. A sufficiently detailed spec does that, and hence it is effectively higher level code. Code (together with the language spec and/or compiler) always does that, regardless of how haphazardly written it is.
> We literally have proof that an iron age ontology of meaning as represented in Chinese characters is 40% more efficient than naive statistical analysis over a semi phonetic language
I'm with you on honesty, and I've certainly seen people tacitly trying to pass off AI outputs as human written. But I think we've reached a point where, in lots of contexts, we can't reasonably assume human authorship by default any more. (We can reasonably want it and push for it! I just mean we can't literally expect it.) So even when we would prefer openness, I think 'lying by omission' is too harsh a characterisation for people who choose not to declare AI authorship but don't actively try to cover it up.
The replies to my comment kind of say everything that needs to be said about what I actually said; people can't even put aside their overt hostility to all things AI long enough to acknowledge that it makes no [good] sense to draw specific attention to LLM usage.
Ironically, it's precisely because of those folks that nobody with half a brain would acknowledge that they use LLMs to bring some or all of their ideas to life.
You can't demand that all people should disclose their bellybutton rings AND openly salivate for cancelling people with bellybutton rings.
It looks a bit like that, but they gave their own repo a 3/5 rating and it's full of obvious LLMisms, so I think they're not totally anti-AI and are trying to be evenhanded.
To me, the metaphor doesn't really work, especially at level 5. Lorum Ipsum is literal placeholder text which is basically the same everywhere it's used; I don't see what that has to do with vibe code. (Also the verse/prose thing seems pretty wanky to me, but I admit that's just a matter of taste.)
Boy, this makes me feel old... oh wait :)
(I agree with your point; early 90s vs. mid-10s are two very different worlds, in this context.)
reply