@torb Thanks! Yeah, I think there’s a lot to be excited about in web dev these days. 🙂

@alanralph Not all of them. But quite a few of them, yeah.

@manton 👍🏻️ Will do.

@manton Thanks. Much appreciated.

@val Thanks!

@torb Yeah it definitely transformed my photography

@crossingthethreshold 🙂️

I lived in Bristol for over a decade. Still miss it.

@torb Thanks!

@faraixyz Yeah, lighting dark scenes is a lost art.

@pimoore 😁️

@mbkriegh Thanks! Really appreciate it. 🙂

@bkryer The vogon comparison is apt.

@fgtech That’s a possibility I hadn’t considered. I hope you’re right.

@todor That's my way of saying that most people's view of what the web can do is filtered through web frameworks that had to support Internet Explorer when they first came out. 😁

@mbkriegh 🙂👍🏻

@petebrown Yeah. That sounds accurate.

@mbkriegh Nice. 😎

@joelhamill Wordpress would have been much less likely to roll this out if Google hadn't clarified that AI-generated content is okay even if discovered and confirmed. Automattic has spent too much time fighting spam blogs on their platforms to go against Google Search's guidance.

If Google had even just vaguely discouraged AI generated text that would almost certainly have prevented Wordpress from shipping the feature.

@fgtech yup

@JohnPhilpin Oh yeah. That too.

@mbkriegh Thanks. 🙂

Interesting to hear about the research papers. The benchmarks for language model summarisation are usually collections of research papers, so it would stand to reason that their results there would be more accurate than with most other papers. And it would make sense that the citations were 100% wrong as that's exactly where they're weak.

The worry I would have is, what are the consequences if it's not 100% right, but 100% right 98% of the time and 100% wrong 2% of the time?

Because that's the dynamic with these models. You hit the long tail or an edge case that's just a little bit too novel to it and it goes bonkers, but because of all the other times it worked, you've come to trust it. I'm glad that it gets the citations 100% wrong. That should make people trust it less and they need to be distrustful, because its the 98% right use cases where adopting these tools can do the most damage.

@fgtech I had not 🙂

@mbkriegh Thanks for the kind words. I really appreciate it. 🙂

@esamecar My pleasure!

@nathanrhale Thanks!