It’s partially correct though - the bad code is indeed bad.
I think it’s partially partially correct, it’s questionable if this is actual CODE. But for sure it’s BAD.
25% correct.
Yeah the x= stuff isn’t even in a function smh
The clean code gets worse the more you look at it
I dœn’t know were you’re seeeing prob)ems. Are wê see1ng the same thing?
So does the bad code
So does the bad code
So does the bad code
So does the bad code
So does the bad code
AI or not, I really don’t know who they’re trying to impress with showing the most basic knowledge.
I’ve seen some incredibly stupid takes on linked in about elementary CS knowledge like “use functions ! do you know what functions are?” so I’m not surprised looking at this image that
-
the poster clearly did not proof read it. maybe he doesn’t know how to read ?
-
the poster did not see that the examples are nonsense
You gotta be freaking insane to post this generated image IMO. Like how do you generate an image about something you know nothing about, and you aren’t afraid that something that’s used to generate images can generate something insightful regarding programming? And he doesn’t proof read it, and if he did, didn’t think twice admit the fact that the text isn’t even saying any words at a few places.
Like, he must not know anything about anything. 😐
you jest, but using the actual function keyword had to be made a point in my team’s code style ruleset because people kept using the
const somethingFunction = ( input ) => { return input*2; };
syntax everywhere. (as opposed to:
function somethingFunction ( input ) { return input*2; })Thats interesting, assuming this is JS, we went the other way and prefer arrow functions.
-
Sometimes I feel like there is people just playing cargo cult on Linkedin. They know very little but want to show off like those “thought leader” types that write pseudo deep stuff all the time.
But how do I choose between a
Qque, aquee, and an actualqueue??Help me, AI, you’re so inteelegmt!! /s
queeis the most adorable choice, and thus the correct choicealias squee sudo quee
roll some special dice?
Thanks, I hate it.
I feel like this is bad even by LLM standards. Must have used a tiny model.
For what I’ve seen so far, LLMs struggle to generate uniform text and letters, even high end models.
Yeah I’m actually quite impressed. I can only find one weird smudgy bit (lower right).
There’s a few more if you look again 🫠
Its also hallucinating the parentheses in a way that looks vaguely like code, but it’s complete garbage
How certain are we that this guy didn’t just say “Make me a linkedin post including images with an insightful take on how I’m definitely better a coding than others.”
It’s like that, including the comments, they all look like bots. A few people just mentioned it’s AI (1 of 13 comments at the time of writing this).
It feels a lot like “dead internet theory” to me:
This creeps me the fuck out.
Feels like walking in on a group where everyone looks and talks almost like humans, but not quite.
And the pics, I mean come on.
int total Records = 10
The parser is not going to be happy about this one.
I guess it could be some language with a totality checker where the
totalkeyword goes between the type and the name? Idris has atotalkeyword but it comes before
I’m wheezing both sides are so bad
A good example of how generators are designed to create passable outputs to people without experience.
Facebook now consists of two types of content.
-
Bots, scraping content from other bots, for the enjoyment of bots.
-
Racism.
That’s Linkedin
LinkedIn seems to be mostly Indians cosplaying as ruthless capitalists, telling stories of imaginary cruelty against imaginary employees for imaginary slights.
-
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected variable "total" on line 2I was going to point out some errors but basically everything needs fixing.
tfw your objet is not ooointaed
Is it just bemoaned both of these…. Not code? I don’t know any language that looks like that. Also, left and right have nothing to do with each other? What a pile of garbage
