Coding landed on the right solution pretty early with this: Use whatever tools you want, but you’re responsible for what you publish.

This is not the case, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.

That is an approach being taken by some, but it's not coding specific and it's certainly not a standard, by any means.

Also people have never cared about the environment.

Some people do, just not the ones who stand to benefit from the decline normally, and those just happen to be the ones who can meaningfully make a difference.

Running an existing model isn’t any worse for the environment than gaming,

If you ignore the difference in scale and significantly different usage profile, sure?

How many gamers do you think you'd need to equate to a 24/7 data centre serving models, or even a mostly local setup running multiple GPU's at max capacity for a full work day, every day ?

and training them produces tools that can be useful as a coding package, like numpy for language.

Being subjectively useful isn't a good argument against environmental impact, unless you have a good example of something so useful it could practically be compared to the impact.

Yeah, everything is bad for the environment,

Not technically true, but in modern society i kind of agree in general.

but I didn’t see this level of outrage about bitcoin and people still like to pretend plastics recycling works.

The outrage is different because the surface area is different, crypto was semi-niche and didn't have the possibility to actively replace people.

More people are potentially impacted by this so you see more complaints (of varying levels of subjective legitimacy and accuracy).

Plastic recycling is an entirely different conversation but it's always been a scam for the most part, people believe because that's what they are told, repeatedly, and they have no reason to think otherwise unless they look in to it.

People aren’t actually mad at AI as a tool. People are mad about shabby work and increased spam. People are mad at losing their job when some jackass CEO fires them and being stung along when they apply for a new job.

Absolutely agree.

If we were brutally honest and insisted that AI has had little substantive effect on the economy (which is what the data actually says)

Citation? because to my (admittedly amateur) knowledge a large proportion of the US stock market is tied up in shenanigans to do with LLM's and the related resources.

Unless you mean the effect of the outputs that have come from LLM's, in which case , sure, it's probably not much of an impact overall.

CEOs and politicians would be forced to take responsibility and be held to account for their stupid decisions.

That has such a vanishingly small likelihood of happening, there is a huge fucking list of significantly worse shit from recent history and actively ongoing that is being ignored because money.

I highly doubt that "CEO makes line go up for quarter by axing 3/4 of still-needed staff, because they have no idea what they are doing" is getting anyone more than a kickback slap on the wrist.

We should definitely still be trying though, I’m just managing my expectations.

Best I can tell, this anti-AI crap is a distraction and excuse not to talk about workers rights, education, and good democratic systems.

"anti-AI crap" is a broad category, but i agree there is a lot of "Look over here" going on.

That's not LLM specific though , it's the norm at this point.

It is indeed the "no ethical consumerism" argument and as I said it's an interesting conversation to have.

I wasn’t arguing against your general premise. I specifically called out the lack of flexibility in your statement and what that implied to me.

That isn’t the case for me though. It isn’t for you either. It isn’t the case for the vast majority of people.

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

And this is the exact kind of privilege and/or lack of imagination I was talking about.

It wasn’t about word choice as much it as what that word choice implied.

It suggests you don't understand how limited the choices can be under poverty, or how widespread it is.

I wasn’t positing it as a gotcha, I am "being real" when i say there are very real circumstances (for a non-trivial amount of people) that don't adhere to your ideal.

Assuming Walmart was your example because it's what you know and not because America is the only place that exists, physical distance is far from the only factor.

Assuming you have a home, even if you lived next door, that's not even close to a guarantee you'd be able to afford a continuous level of food that matches your ideal and also reaches a level of healthy nutrition.

The easy example is literal starvation, where it's not possible to secure enough food of any kind, let alone the kind that adheres to your premise.

This isn't an obscure thing from 300 years ago, this is a reality, today.

I wasn’t saying you were wrong, i was saying your argument possibly comes from a position of privilege and if you think this is a 300 year ago problem, I was correct.

edit: clean up

Non standard actions in response to stressors is a known possibility with some neurodivergent diagnoses.

Calm responses to subjectively large issues or dangerous situations as well as subjectively oversized reactions to seemingly normal stimuli (sound being a common example).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_processing_disorder

Completely aside from the op's statement, in this case, condemnations don't mean shit unless there is action associated with it.

At worst it's the political unions version of "thoughts and prayers", at best it's genuine dissention that's being ignored until it's too fucking late to matter.

Im sure there are political considerations I don't see as a layperson but nations speaking up and control being in the hands of a single or small minority of nations aren't mutually exclusive states.

My stance on the issue is obvious but I'm not arguing that stance here, just that your reply is logically shaky.

TL;DR;

You asked why it mattered if it's LLM generated or not, i provided examples where it does matter, nothing you've said in your reply seems to refute that so I'll just assume we've agreed on this point.

The rest of this reply is just me replying to your additional arguments.

Ok, so you’re suggesting that people are submitting kernel patches that somehow modify the architecture of the kernel/it’s components, that the new architecture is very complex and hard to analyze, that the those architectural changes are part of roadmap and are not rejected right away and that those big, complex architectural level patches are submitted with high frequency. Somehow I doubt all of it.

I mean, i didn't say any of that but feel free to doubt a position you just made up.

I think the slop patches are small fixes suggested by some AI code analysis tools.

There's no reason to believe that LLM usage is limited to small patches.

that architectural and complex changes are part of well defined roadmap and don’t come out of nowhere and that code that doesn’t follow conventions is easily spotted and rejected.

In a well maintained project, sure, ish, but let's just say you're right about the plan/roadmap phase.

The spotting and rejection you mentioned are now significantly more time and resource consuming for the reasons i stated in the previous reply.

Also when i used the word architecturally i was referring to the logical domain of the patch and the things it interacts with, i wasn't implying that LLM's would get a chance at re-architecting an entire project as large as the Linux kernel.

At least i'd hope not.

The linked article talks only about marking the code as AI generated (IMHO useless but harmless) and increasing volume of AI slop patches.

I'm not sure of the usefulness of this kind of marking in practice, but i can tell you a way in which it might be useful.

The way you need to go about evaluating LLM generated code vs human code can be different.

And before you get on your high horse I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing a good job reviewing in general, of course we should.

Review and testing resources are limited in most practical settings, we should be focusing on best utilising that resource in the most efficient manner possible.

There are tools specifically geared towards evaluating LLM generated code for specific mistakes, this marking would enable a more efficient usage/allocation of review resources over and above the baseline code-quality tests.

The idea that maintainers spend time analyzing complex LLM generated code submitted by random amateurs looking for possible architectural bugs sounds like a fantasy to me

Which is clear from your answers, if you don't understand how pull request review works in practice you're going to struggle to make a coherent argument that requires that understanding.

To answer the statement directly, there's sometimes no efficient way to tell which patches are from amateurs, even without LLM's.

The issue isn't even just relegated to amateurs, i would like to assume a competent dev of any skill level wouldn't be submitting patches they don't understand but that's just not always the case.

and again, think architecture with a 'little a' rather than a 'big A'.

Logical flow and domain understanding in a relatively limited scope, rather than system-wide structural change.

The difference between tactics and strategy.

Hah, 3 whole comments, all of them nuts.

Another bot for the blocklist.

There is a privacy setting in firefox that causes this for me on most websites that require photo upload, not all sites, but consistently the same sites.

Ebay for instance, most reverse image searches etc.

in about:config - > privacy.resistFingerprinting

It might not be that setting specifically, but turning that setting to "false" does fix this for me.

There might be a more granular setting that does the same job but i don't know of it.

Not that i'm recommending turning that off, that's your call.

I've also not tried it on this site specifically.

It seems like you don't quite understand how federated services work.

Here's a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.

• You can block individual users
  • That will remove posts by them from your feed.
  • All future and historical posts by them will also be removed from your vision.
• If you feel like a community as a whole is allowing behaviour you disagree with you can block that entire community
  • You also have the option of creating your own space with a similar theme, a space that you can police in exactly the way you prefer. ( for example "Video No Politics" )
• In the possible case of disliking the content and/or moderation of an entire instance...you guessed it, you can block that also.
  • Creating your own instance is also a possibility, it can be a bit involved but is certainly possible.
  • Then you have all the control, you can invite your friends, success.

You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.

"Their upvote ratio is too damn high", is an instant classic btw.

Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)

Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.

Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.

Various back and forth emails, a completely "justified" performance review program because of your "falling standards" and several meetings with various managers at different levels of "importance".

Also the "You're absolutely correct, ENJOY" is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your "redundancy" exit interview.

Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he's actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn't necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?

Or did you just want to slip in the "stereotypical white guy" dog whistle?

If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.

imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.

Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.

Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.

Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.

I'd imagine that's why some people care.

Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?

Describe what you mean by "freedom of speech" here, I'm assuming you don't mean the first amendment because that only applies in the US and only for protection against congress ( the US congress ofc ).

Given the above I'm not sure what line you mean here, libel/slander?

You can only point out facts that exist, well, you can technically point out whatever you like and call it "fact" i suppose, but it's not really accurate unless it's an actual fact.

Unless accuracy isn't what you were going for ?

In case you were wondering : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact