That’s not what is happening. The bot writes code and then I tell it what to change until it’s close enough, then I make the final touches myself. It’s like having a junior programmer do the grunt work for you.

Then try writing the code yourself and ask ChatGPT’s o3-mini-high to critique your code (be sure to explain the context).

Or ask it to produce unit tests - even if they’re not perfect from the get go I promise you will save time by having a starting skeleton.

Another thing I often use it for is ad hoc transformations. For example I wanted to generate constants for all the SQLSTATE codes in the PostgreSQL documentation. I just pasted the table directly from the documentation and got symbolic constants with the appropriate values and with documentation comments.

That seems like just wishful thinking on your part, or maybe you haven’t learned how to use these tools properly.

As an experienced software dev I’m convinced my software quality has improved by using AI. More time for thinking and less time for execution means I can make more iterations of the design and don’t have to skip as many nice-to-haves or unit tests on account of limited time. It’s not like I don’t go through every code line multiple times anyway, I don’t just blindly accept code. As a bonus I can ask the AI to review the code and produce documentation. By the time I’m done there’s little left of what was originally generated.

Please, you’re wasting your time explaining. I know all this. I’m talking about how a libertarian would interpret the question due to its ambiguous phrasing. My only point is that of the original parent comment: the methodology of the researcher is bad.

No, 0.05$ is not a substantial amount of money. A 5 percentage points tax increase could be considered substantial. The question is worded so that it can be interpreted in the latter way, and it’s also using a subjective word like “substantial”. Somebody who is politically against taxes is likely to interpret it the latter way, and hence the poll’s results are skewed by its vagueness.

If we want to measure math skills and understanding of the law, a better question would be by how many dollars the total tax would increase. This would also give us better information on how far off people are.

I mean I understand all of these things. But the question is worded in a way that can be interpreted wildly differently depending on the political affiliation of the person responding.

Not only that. As a general rule road markings are hidden beneath the snow, and often signs will be covered as well. You have to make an educated guess what they say. E.g. speed limit is based on contextual clues like road width, distance to treeline etc).

Really any technology that relies on signs and markings being visible will fail. There is little indication of where the road is. Often a fork in the road is not apparent because the plow has pushed up a snow bank that you must push through (but be careful not to get stuck in it if it’s too dense).

Combine this with heavy snow in the wind, road salt that picks up dirt that sticks to sensors, fog, and other cars that overtake you while spraying snow across your windshield. It’s honestly crazy that humans manage so well in these conditions.

Yeah what does “substantially” mean in this context and what are we even measuring? In terms of percentage units, the step from 28% to 33% is definitely a substantial increase. The question doesn’t specify whether we’re talking about total dollars paid or just how much the tax percentage increases in that bracket.

They’re basically “republicans light”: still bad but at least not literal nazis

Human eyes are way better at this than any camera based self driving system. No self driving system is anywhere close to driving in Swedish winter with bad weather and no sun, yet us Swedes do it routinely by the millions every day.

Is it really “not safe for work” if everyone at work is in on it?

ThinkPad is a work tool. MacBook is a fashion statement.