fonix232

“Man, this baby grinding machine sure eats a lot of babies, but think of all the money it generates!”

“We deliver what you won’t”

No, buddy, you got it wrong, that is the FFC, Fetus Fight Club.

You give 'em a scalpel and let them at each other. Fight is to the death.

It’s basically the combination of abortion and loot boxes.

Hunting with a valid reason (for food, population control, etc.) is acceptable and/or a necessity.

Hunting for funsies only - including all the BS safari hunting that are essentially glorified high tech fishing trips - is disgusting

Torches? TORCHES???

My dude, you seriously believe electric lights went mainstream during medieval times? Which would be pretty much the last period where any place used primarily torches for street lighting…

At the very best it phased out gas lights. Not torches.

You really have zero idea no matter the topic, but you’re so confidently un-knowledgeable, you’ve managed to convince yourself that you know everything.

I have not stated a single lie here.

You, however, started out with an emotional outburst and has refused to even read and understand my replies. That makes this entire discussion pointless, and I refuse to waste energy on the likes of you.

As for respect… why would I care what a laughable chud luddite wannabe, a mid-40s loser who can’t keep up with the world and blames everyone but himself, someone who’s peaked before they turned 20, thinks about me? You’ve provided great entertainment for a few hours, and the saddest part is, that’s probably the most useful you’ve been in the past decade.

Ah yes the lie being fed to me, aka having seen a lot of the exploits, as well as their RCAs clearly pointing to human written code. Unless you suggest that these AI companies have discovered time travel and are sending back their LLMs in time a la Terminator, but instead of killing John Connor, they’re just… injecting slop before LLMs were a thing. Which is obviously a ridiculous notion.

Yes, actual slop - code never reviewed by a human, having no actual maintainer, etc. - can have major security issues. Today, considerably less than, say, a year ago. Reality is, most slopware is either abandoned in no time, or, the less likely option, get traction, get more people working on it, and over time, become less sloppy as people take ownership of various parts.

Meanwhile, an overwhelming part of the IT industry now utilises AI with humans in the loop. We are actually in the phase of the “find out and oh fuck backtrack on it” part of the whole “let’s fire engineers because a manager with AI can do the work of a department” idea backfired spectacularly.

You do realise that most of those bugs and exploits aren’t from AI generated code (a good chunk has existed for years before LLMs were even a wet thought), and the number is mainly exploding because LLMs are being used to identify them, right?

Take the highly coveted, human audited OS OpenBSD. 30+ years of code, deemed to be the most secure, most closely watched and verified on the planet… And a simple LLM check identifies not one, not two, but three (by my last count, this could’ve increased since, I don’t follow OpenBSD that closely) major, exploitable issues that humans have missed for years.

But sure, slop.

Civility goes out the door the moment you decide to not actually contribute anything useful but regurgitate an “argument” of pure emotion without any factual basis.

So I’ll repeat, fuck the fuck off, and when you think you’re far enough, fuck off a little bit more.

Hey now, not all of us are spouting nonsense constantly. I for one tend to research topics - even if in a cursory manner (and no that does not mean I use Cursor or other AI as my main information source, before another anti-AI shitwit accuses me of doing so). And I tend to stick to topics I have at least a cursory understanding of, to begin with.

Should that not be the case, I’ll try to join the discussion with questions. Problem is, what I consider the basics of a discussion worth having - that is, being informative, with the goal of education, sharing knowledge - seems to be too much effort for most.

However what I can’t stand is the aforementioned shitwits joining a level headed discussion only to barf in a half-digested word salad based on nothing but their emotions. If I wanted to debate based on emotions, I’d go to a reality show community…

to be fair, musl does exist, and bionic as well (though I doubt Google hasn’t used AI in it). Then there’s newlib, uclibc, diet libc…

I get it, it’s a shitpost, but the US choosing a slightly less fascistic government halfway through the orange shitstain’s second attempt to turn the US into his technofeudal fiefdom isn’t really “fixing all the problems”…

It’s a VERY small step in the right direction, and the first step of a VERY long road.

“right now” - interesting, it hasn’t happened to me yet.

Also interestingly, worked at “high security” places where IT literally was unaware that a middle manager used their work laptop to torrent bestiality porn - they only saw it once the police raided the manager and confiscated their work laptop and IT had to check wtf was going on.

Monitoring is rarely as thorough as your IT dept would have you believe.

Yeeeeeah, not gonna listen to some fuckwit who immediately launches into an unprompted tirade without even reading what they reply to.

There is a difference between an AI doing a security review (which they have become quite accomplished) and generating code that gets committed into the codebase.

I guess I should’ve quoted the whole part, as my primary point was to show that not only did AI spot niche, obscure bugs… it spotted niche, obscure bugs that HUMANS couldn’t.

Again, how does one verify that the code it has generated isn’t some verbatim chunk of copyrighted code that it happened to be trained on, and it turned out to be the best fit? There’s no guarantee that a model will not do this, even if instructed.

And what if someone has a genius idea and comes up with a piece of code, completely on their own, and it turns out to be the exact same, verbatim, character by character matching as a copyrighted piece of code?

What if AI does this? What if the model wasn’t even trained on that piece of code, but, by sheer coincidence, it puts together the same solution because it’s the most obvious and best option?

Copyright and licensing in code is already a weird topic because mechanical problems often have the same solution. There’s a finite (and in fact, usually very low) number of ways you can run the same algorithm or represent the same data. Say you have to implement a key-value storage system. No requirements on it needing to support millions of entries, historical caching, snapshotting, anything, expectations are simple: a command to add an entry (and update the value assigned to the key, if the key already exists), a command to delete an entry, and a command to get the number of stored items. Wanna bet that if you give this task to 1000 developers of the same language, a large majority will write nearly the same code? Hell, if you don’t consider inconsequential things like variable/field/property/function naming, there’s good chance 90%+ of them will write the same thing. Woukd that be plagiarism though? Would copyright apply?

On the other hand if you were to write and release a book that is verbatim the same as another, famous book, with the only difference being the names of characters and places… Well I guess you can see where I’m going with this.

Also, content generated by AI models has already been deemed uncopyrightable, and this includes code. So are some larrtsmof the Linux kernel now able to be copied freely without GPL restrictions? How can you license code or executables compiled from said code if you do not hold the copyright on it?

You could already copy small enough parts of the Linux kernel without needing to cover yours in GPL. Trivial things for example. Say you have a driver that talks to sone niche hardware in a specific data packet format. Can you copy/recreate that? Or a trivial solution like the aforementioned cache. GPL doesn’t mean you can’t copy a single line of code without your codebase becoming GPL too.

Oh btw that copyright claim is much weaker than you’d think. It didn’t specify the level of human involvement for example. Also, given the base code is GPL and human written, and GPL applies to all derivative works, it still applies.

That’s why I said SAVE the code, not USE it.

in 20-30 years that company will be dust. Or at best, trying to get that code back. In which case you can swoop in and deliver a saviour package - “hey guys I worked here some 30 years ago and kiiiiinda didn’t delete the code when I left, now I know it’s against my contract, but rest assured it was only used for archival purposes - anyway heard you wanted backups because you lost yours, so here it is”

As they usually do.

Please shut the fuck up if you have no inkling about what you’re talking about.

And, software devs, THIS is why you keep a copy of the code and documentation when you leave.

Not because you might want to use it for malicious reasons. That can backfire.

But, one, your local copy will always be there for your reference, so you can recall a funky solution, or a weird bug and it’s workarounds.

But most importantly… who knows if in 30-50 years that code won’t become something highly sought after?

As a senior dev… AI actually improved the code we wrote in my last job. Mind you the codebase was in a shite position (tons of technical debt, plague-like avoidance of inline comments because “all of that knowledge is on Jira/Notion” except it wasn’t; lots of legacy code, undocumented weird behaviours, everyone was doing their own coding style without regards to the rest of the codebase and so on).

With controlled AI contributions, we’ve managed to:

• refactor large chunks of code where the overall high level logic didn’t need to change, but the underlying tooling did (e.g. lots of UI layers got rewritten from a very early attempt at a standardised MVVM approach to a well defined MVI one, we’ve also managed to eliminate the remaining RxJava/RxKotlin legacy flows to replace them with Coroutines)
• UI layers got refactored in no time because the AI agent was able to convert them appropriately (and even fixed a handful of UI bugs)
• a handful of core monoliths (yes I know… I hated working with them as well, but we never had the chance to properly refactor) got split up into more manageable, vertical-specific domain controllers without breaking
• the elimination of a legacy overarching component that was estimated at 6 months, got reduced to 6 weeks
• unit test coverage skyrocketed because even if the code was hand-written, an agent would provide coverage, based not just on implementation but on intention (and adoption of TDD/BDD finally started spreading).

Meanwhile code quality improved because we’ve had well established patterns and styles defined in the agent instructions, and even the anti-documentation “pragmatists” got shut up when they finally understood that the AI works better if there’s fucking comments to explain what’s going on