There was even a comparison to the original Clippy, which was not intended as flattery.Īnd here's developer Andi McClure lambasting the new AI Help feature: "Aside from the ethical, legal and reputational issues here - practically speaking, until I have been assured that all 'AI' integration and content has been permanently removed from MDN, I cannot trust, or use, MDN for any purpose. How to tell an AI bot wrote that scammy-looking tax email: No spelling mistakes.Lawyers who cited fake cases hallucinated by ChatGPT must pay.Is your AI hallucinating? Might be time to call in the red team.Google warns its own employees: Do not use code generated by Bard.It dramatically weakens my confidence in MDN and I fear that its inclusion will promote an over-reliance on cheap but unreliable text generation." I fail to see how LLM output prone to egregious inaccuracies improves that. Others report that AI Help contradicts itself, misidentifies CSS functions, erroneously explains accessibility functions, and generally doesn't understand CSS.Īvdi Grimm wrote, "I didn't spend a decade trying to convince people to use MDN over the shovelfuls of low-quality SEO-farming craptext on W3Schools, only for them to be presented with shovelfuls of low-quality AI craptext on MDN."Īnd some thoughts from Dalton Miner: "I use MDN because it's a comprehensive and accurate source of documentation with no fluff. Please keep MDN as a trusted source of human generated developer documentation." This is even more true today than it was in the past, as LLM generated chum spreads across the web. Or this, from datarocks: "As someone who occasionally dips his toes in CSS when no one else is available and a thing needs to be fixed, I depend on these docs to be dependable.
0 kommentar(er)
