When you hear "AI" it means
-
When you hear "AI" it means
I tend to reserve "machine learning" for what I consider technically rigorous pattern classification.
I consider "AI" to be an unscientific term, and use it to refer to things I consider hype-driven and lacking technical merit.
-
When you hear "AI" it means
@RnDanger
None of those... it's a pattern-matching system fed on stolen data and run using massive amounts of resources for little actual gain.There are good uses for it - but it's mostly NOT being used for those purposes.
As a result, it's like a wrench being used as a hammer. Yeah, it seems to work, but eventually things are going to break and people aren't going to be able to use it for anything.
-
From what I'm seeing these days, its a bimodal distribution of:
"I don't understand it but it allows me to do amazing things I couldn't do before!"
"I don't understand it but its going to destroy civilization and environment and I hate it and will reactionarily lash out."
And even now after Codeberg's anti-LLM stance, now Debian is getting in on it as well. Its tiring.
@crankylinuxuser
I think banning generated code in a project makes sense even if there might be functional ways to do it that won't turn your stack into slop and you do not care about environmental impact. Too many people will submit slop to the stack simply because they have the tools to do so and it will be awful to maintain -
When you hear "AI" it means
A marketing ploy
-
When you hear "AI" it means
@RnDanger it means the rich get richer
-
@RnDanger it means the rich get richer
@shapr
"Hey, gimme all your useful so i can discard you" -
@crankylinuxuser
I think banning generated code in a project makes sense even if there might be functional ways to do it that won't turn your stack into slop and you do not care about environmental impact. Too many people will submit slop to the stack simply because they have the tools to do so and it will be awful to maintainThere's so many problems with these claims.
Banning generated code? How do you even tell? Code quality? 'Claude' committed it? Has a certain "smell"?
Or is it the US supreme court obscenity standard of " I'll know it when I see it."?
Cause that last one is what Codeberg admins said they'd use. For obvious reasons, this is a terrible precedent.
As for environmental impact, everyone who howls about that ignores that you can run #localllm on your own machines. And with Chinese open source/weight models freely available, means I can own my means of computation.
And Chinese energy is some of the most environmentally sound given TW's of their energy is solar, and rewilding the edge of the Gobi while they're at it.
I guess it does use a mug of water an hour.... Cause I'm drinking that mug of coffee.
And 'submitting slop to the stack', so most FLOSS projects are just 1 human. So 1 human+1 bot is now somehow troubling?? I reject that assessment. The bot could be doing test writing, documentation, validating specifications, attacking the code in a container, etc.
Now the big projects that are inundated - there are simple ways to impede that. Account age. Minimum viable commits. Required tests. Proofs of concept. No refactoring. Most of those would block the deluge.
-
There's so many problems with these claims.
Banning generated code? How do you even tell? Code quality? 'Claude' committed it? Has a certain "smell"?
Or is it the US supreme court obscenity standard of " I'll know it when I see it."?
Cause that last one is what Codeberg admins said they'd use. For obvious reasons, this is a terrible precedent.
As for environmental impact, everyone who howls about that ignores that you can run #localllm on your own machines. And with Chinese open source/weight models freely available, means I can own my means of computation.
And Chinese energy is some of the most environmentally sound given TW's of their energy is solar, and rewilding the edge of the Gobi while they're at it.
I guess it does use a mug of water an hour.... Cause I'm drinking that mug of coffee.
And 'submitting slop to the stack', so most FLOSS projects are just 1 human. So 1 human+1 bot is now somehow troubling?? I reject that assessment. The bot could be doing test writing, documentation, validating specifications, attacking the code in a container, etc.
Now the big projects that are inundated - there are simple ways to impede that. Account age. Minimum viable commits. Required tests. Proofs of concept. No refactoring. Most of those would block the deluge.
@crankylinuxuser
I feel like you've simultaneously expanded and contracted your idea to make your statement credible at the expense of maintaining any sensibility in the defending statement
And the only way I can figure that Chinese power plays any role in this question is you used it to extrude that reply, lol
-
When you hear "AI" it means
I think i overestimated how much people care about AI generated code, or maybe i wrote it in a way people don't want to agree with
-
I think i overestimated how much people care about AI generated code, or maybe i wrote it in a way people don't want to agree with
I almost didn't put surveillance down and wow that would have missed a lot!
-
@crankylinuxuser
I feel like you've simultaneously expanded and contracted your idea to make your statement credible at the expense of maintaining any sensibility in the defending statementAnd the only way I can figure that Chinese power plays any role in this question is you used it to extrude that reply, lol
Funny. Cause all my comments on mastodon are 100% my own. No automation.
But that's now a general insult of "things I don't like" by calling it slop.
-
Funny. Cause all my comments on mastodon are 100% my own. No automation.
But that's now a general insult of "things I don't like" by calling it slop.
@crankylinuxuser
Sorry, my "Chinese power" statement was supposed to have an if in it, not to be accusatory. My bad. But still, you widened the scope everywhere a wider scope helps your case, and you've narrowed it the same. The resulting scope is nonsense.
This is pretty common when i see people defend AI -
@crankylinuxuser
Sorry, my "Chinese power" statement was supposed to have an if in it, not to be accusatory. My bad. But still, you widened the scope everywhere a wider scope helps your case, and you've narrowed it the same. The resulting scope is nonsense.
This is pretty common when i see people defend AIPart of it was stream of consciousness. Also taking my cat out for a walk.
The LLM haters will (rightfully) look at US data center, power, water, pollution as a big example why training is extremely problematic. And in the USA, it is.
Chinese power is primarily solar, and using things like geothermal and other better renewables. Their training is still problematic, but nowhere near the Muskean "let's run 40 methane generators next to the black community cause fuck blacks" happening in Memphis and Louisiana.
-
When you hear "AI" it means
@RnDanger Missing option: “No Wieners”
-
When you hear "AI" it means
@RnDanger I chose all, regretfully
