TehPers

The LLM when you tell it to rewrite it in Rust.

It’d be the Avenged Fold7.

No, there is no space there.

The main problem I have with the bulk of Anti-AI opinions is that they are simply that: opinions, backed up with parroted “facts” many of which are baseless, untrue, blown out of realistic proportion, etc.

This is, to an unbelievabe extent, true of the “Pro-AI” crowd (in particular those selling AI). It’s to the extent that the economy is inevitably fucked once investors start pulling out. AI CEOs lie regularly about the capabilities of their products.

In any case, “pro-AI”/“anti-AI” is a political approach to AI, and politics revolves entirely around opinion. If you truly want “facts” then you have to be willing to accept facts that you disagree with as well.

It is a fact that many bugs have been found with AI, yes. It has provided value to a lot of people.

It is also a fact that for all the good AI has done for people, it is also an unregulated bullshit emitter. Shit, just the other day, I tried asking Kagi Assistant a question, and it gave me an answer in Chinese. My question was in English. It had nothing to do with languages. But if you want numbers, these AI companies publish their benchmarks publicly, so go look at those and consider whether “correct 80% of the time in a benchmark the model was optimized for” is good enough to always trust.

Finally, it is a fact that AI companies have done irreparable harm to the world on an enormous scale, socially, ecologically, politically, and so on.

Am I the only person that thinks fixing kernel bugs discovered with AI is a good thing?

No. A bug is a bug.

Even everyone saying Linus went full AI… Like… What? IMO he’s being practical. It IS a tool, and there ARE a lot of things it should not be used for, but using it to patch things before human verification happens is a pretty sensible thing to do.

Using AI to fix a bug is different than fixing a bug found by AI. Even in Torvald’s vibecoded patch, he introduced a new bug, then asked the reviewer to take over the patch and went on vacation.

Would love to hear from someone who has been programming for a long time and isn’t all just “AI bad because AI bad”.

While I get where this is coming from, being dismissive of people who you disagree with doesn’t exactly inspire healthy discussion. If you want genuine opposing opinions, those will only come from those you disagree with.

I got curious and checked my own usage. Averages around 700MB or so for the past few months. It spiked one month because I was using my phone as a hotspot for a work call.

Unsurprisingly, Google Play services uses the vast majority of my data. Fucking Google. I have unlimited, so it’s whatever, but still.

This seems like a problem that can be approached entirely in embedding space. Find embeddings for words that you want to avoid, then filter your dictionary to remove anything too close to those.

No need to go through full text gen or anything, though if you want to go that route, a classifier like Jev (or OpenJev/etc) would be best.

the classic language models before LLMs existed

Which models are you referring to here? Earlier versions of GPT (like GPT-2)?

There are small LLMs like Phi 4 Mini that you could look at. Those were part of the “small language model” craze (SLMs).

If you want meaningful commit messages though, nothing beats handwritten messages. Commit frequently and the messages should be short and easy to come up with.

“Guns cause a lot of shootings, so let’s ban guns”

~ any reasonable country on the planet

Breaking news: software written from the ground up in 2026 opens faster than software that’s been developed, extended, bloated, and maintained for over two decades.

Steam releasing a performance patch so soon after makes it even funnier.

Wouldn’t this also be true of the Windows version though? Windows applications usually ship alongside any libraries they use.

2GB seems way too excessive.

I also think the attitude toward it would be more positive if those in the spotlight for training these models weren’t actively creating global economic crises, bringing down random websites with sustained high-volume traffic, filibustering collaboration with low quality issues and PRs, and completely disregarding the licenses for the code they’re using.

In fact, were these models only used to better the world, I’m sure that many developers would be more than happy to support the effort even if it meant licensing the code for training under more permissive licenses (assuming they could get their contributors on board as well).

Instead, we all get to hear about how some egotistical billionaire is trying to become a trillionaire, or how the prices of everything skyrocketing is a good thing because some rich people got more rich.

if you have any sort of cloud-connected cameras in your home, get rid of them now

It really shouldn’t take anything like this for someone to get rid of their cameras. Did everyone forget Eufy’s camera feeds being publicly available?

Security systems (and baby/pet monitors) should be local network only. If it needs an internet connection, don’t bother with it. If you need access to the feed from outside your home network, then just run something like Tailscale.

It’s nice to see that business execs can be automated now though. Well, except the part where they openly bribe politicians I guess.

How are you accessing the website? Are you using a web server like miniserve or are you just opening the HTML files in a browser?

Beginning a path with / makes the path absolute for that origin. An origin is basically the URL’s scheme, domain, subdomains, and port (so https://www.example.com/foo/bar has the origin https://www.example.com/ - ignore the trailing slash, Lemmy keeps adding it…). If your URL begins with file:// then absolute paths will likely be absolute to your filesystem, not relative to your project’s directory.

If you can, try serving the directory with something like miniserve and see if it works. It’ll give you a better picture of what the website would look like if it were published for real. Otherwise, you can make the path relative to solve the problem without doing that.

This article does everything in its power to try to twist DHH’s words in some charitable manner while assigning (and subsequently defecating on) some arbitrary Rubyisms to an article that had nothing to do with Ruby.

Ironically, the article does exactly what it claims the others were doing by assuming those others were responding to his article based on uncharitable assumptions or poor faith.

The words a person chooses to write in a blog post are thought-out and explicit. He chose his wording to convey the meaning it did, knowing full well what the connotations of those sentences were. He reinforces those connotations with his later speech. And now he solidifies that message by accepting something of monetary value from Musk.

The far-right plausable deniability game isn’t going to work here. Evaluating speech solely on the semantic meaning of the words alone disregards the most valuable parts of communication. His message was clear, and it’s people like this who choose to ignore it (or who silently agree, though I don’t know this author so I have no clue which it is).

This is just speech-to-text, right? If so, advertising it as “AI”, while a historically popular term for it, is going to kill any interest in it before anyone has a chance to try it. I don’t use Ubuntu, nor do I have any interest in it, but STT tools are powerful accessibility tools.

Honestly, I have no idea what’s going on in conservative spaces, but they’ve been taking quotes out of context for well over a decade at this point (if not longer but I haven’t paid attention much longer than that). It’s entirely possible he said that and they’re quoting it, though the conclusion I’d have without more context is that he’s referring to something like binary partisanship, not gender. edit: skimmed past the quote with context lol. Ok, good job Talarico? I’m genuinely surprised.

But yeah, it’s going to spout nonsense. Even ignoring the potential for foul play, it makes shit up even with its “harmless” responses. My point was more that it at least lowers the barrier for people who would have done no research anyway, and those people often tend to lean right.

Using ChatGPT (or any LLM) for this purpose is obviously incredibly flawed and very likely to lead towards bias (both intentional by the service provider and unintentional from the training), and in a world of mass misinformation, a chatbot is going to be no better at filtering the facts from the bullshit than a person would be, and we know how good people are at that.

But if there’s one silver lining: anybody who did no research before who now does this at least is exposed to more perspectives, hopefully. One would imagine this is a possible gateway to further self-directed research.

Imagine being unable to use two monitors with different display resolutions and refresh rates on Linux.

If it weren’t for Wayland, I’d still be on Windows.

300 hectares — the equivalent of almost 500 football fields

Thanks for the context. As someone who lives in the US, I wouldn’t have been able to put that to scale otherwise.