@DamonWakes @libreoffice alright, so no point made, just internet blah blah and patting yourself on the bias back. Bye then!

@DamonWakes @libreoffice

Ah, and why is that so? Go on, make a point. Can you even summarise mine, so I can be sure you're even trying to understand my point?

@nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice Alright, I don't see much sense in continuing this discussion, have a nice day though, y'all.

@DamonWakes @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice And I am getting desperate on why you guys can not understand the purpose of an analogy. Another try: If the code is correct, it's correct.

@nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice See, that's where we disagree. In my world, 1+1 will always equal 2. And if we want to value human over machine-generated things, then we should try not to leave reason behind as the first measure, because that's our common human denominator. But do in your world whatever you want.

@VileLasagna Okay but then, since you are not arguing on the quality of the code and rather on the semantics of who wrote it, it's a little pointless as a critique? That's like saying "the code might be good but my neighbour, who I hate, wrote it, so it's shit".

@peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice That's fine, but it's like deciding to keep running in a race where others are using cars. Sure, they might not be very talented, driving is not that complicated ("lack of care"), but they will overtake you. And leave you with a vulnerable, left-behind software product, if we shall leave the analogy and get back to the actual application here.

@VileLasagna you implied that it's still slop though, even with their restrictions, which require human review and understanding. So that fully translates to my example.

@peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice you get the point. If a human has put in the work to understand and verify each line of code, but maybe the implementation was done in an elegant way by an LLM in short time, then that is good code. The product is what counts. The fear behind SLOP callers is just that the code is unexplainable and mysterious, and you fix that by human review.

@davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice Ah, so a if AI writes 1+1=2, it's not true anymore, and jUsT sLoP? You guys are completely losing track ...

@VileLasagna @libreoffice Ah, so a if AI writes 1+1=2, it's not true anymore, and jUsT sLoP? You guys are completely losing track ...