so if a scoring system automatically ranks candidates lower for lacking a public GitHub or open-source contributions, that might indirectly disadvantage certain groups. ie
ppl in defense, security, or other restricted industries who cannot legally share work publicly, people under strict employer IP/confidentiality rules, some demographics or nationalities with different access to open-source engagement (something like non-citizens not allowed to use xyz ie mythos), this can be construed as disparate impact which is protected under the equal employment opportunities commission (EEOC) and employers can be held liable for this as it can be seen as a biased discriminatory practice.
And anti-AI people accuse people who use AI of being intellectually lazy. First of all, it's long because it's expanded to respond to all the criticisms. It seems that either something can be short, and dismissed as incomplete, or it can be complete, and dismissed as being long. Nice Kafka trap. Additionally, there's literally an Executive Summary section right there, for your TLDR.
of course. do it now while they have the users. in a year when everyone has laptops with 128gb+ running models locally, anthropic stands zero chance. same with openai. i dont even use openai anymore. this will be one of the biggest crashes in history.
omg my family we all went to see this today and we were all raging at the end. this is one of the dumbest movies any of us have ever seen. no plot. no point. complete waste of my life that i will never get back.
its destroyed my codebases with ai slop , errors, and code maintenance nightmares going forward. i feel bad for anyone having to work on ai generated code.
terribly written article that failed to make any point. anyone whise read ai generated code from the best models and who understand how llms work, knows this statement is complete bs.
