mailbox.org

https://stallman-report.org/

it’s not new; are you saying that you didn’t read this and look at the sources or are you saying that you just don’t care he did (and does) these things?

(i strongly suspect it’s the second, and i doubt you have any interest in having a good faith conversation, so i am unlikely to reply to whatever deflection you responded with - but to anyone else reading this comment, please just take a couple minutes and read through the report if your only awareness of stallmen is gnu)

so what happens when i start barfing up gold coins and never can’t afford food again, what then?

that’s really sweet

human code of /course/ can have vulnerabilities; there is no need to be black and white about it, auli

if for some reason i had to trust my bank details with either a program written by a human who cared enough to write it or a fully vibe coded (human didn’t even /glance/ at the code) program i wouldn’t find the choice between those options difficult, would you?

i don’t disagree with you on the first half very broadly but that’s a pretty deeply reductionist and apathetic way to look at it.
we can both identify what is likely given current incentives and then work to avoid those outcomes if they aren’t desirable.

i don’t find the lack of people remembering phone numbers or keeping maps in their cars undesirable.
i do find a swerve into long term unmaintainability for many new (and some existing) foss projects undesirable.

nope. apologies but you have stepped on a pet peeve of mine.

the slippery slope fallacy is someone saying: don’t allow a₁ because if we allow a₁ then a₂ will happen and we don’t want a₂ so we must prohibit a₁.
the slippery slope fallacy is not someone saying: a naturally trends towards a² and a² would be a problem so we should avoid passing a*2.

for example, the slippery slope fallacy was committed when people used to say that letting consenting adults legally marry each other would inevitably lead to people legally marrying animals. it is not committed when, for example, people say that americans should at some point put a limit on how big their trucks are getting since the short term incentives all push in that direction despite the fact that more and more people keep dying. do you understand?

saying that it is easy to slip further and further into leaning on llms in the way i described is both observably true and actively what the companies selling the product (with all of their vast resources) are aiming to achieve. that is the [if the short term incentives will foreseeable move us from a to a²] part of this. the other part of this is that i believe that a future where projects are truly vibe coded (no human reviewing the code) is not one where that software is maintained in the long term [a² isn’t desirable] and it seems you agree on that part.

i am not saying that if people follow the short term incentives and move towards using llms more that next they will ‘get lazy’ (to use your word) with cooking too and start putting too much salt and oil in their food to try to quickly make it taste better. not a₁ -> a₂ but a -> a*2 -> a². not only that but also i am not calling for banning generative ai at all. i am saying that because a² is undesirable let’s stop at a*2 (“…/truly/ checking the output the same way [we] would scrutinize [code written by an intern we don’t trust].”) because that is the point that i believe delineates (broadly) positive vs negative outcomes in the long term.

all of that to say, even if you don’t agree with me on generative ai, i hope you now know how to correctly identify that fallacy in the future.

my concern isn’t “laziness” - it’s that i want software that is maintainable over something flashy that will be rotting in a year

someone who knows what they are doing using autocomplete is fine in my opinion if that is truly how it is being used. the problem is that once you accept an llm writing the rest of a line of boiler plate for you it is a short step into it writing a function body for you which i trust far less.

it is easy to just accept llm content as ‘good enough’ and become lulled into not thinking critically about the security and performance implications of the code it is popping out. /if/ humans who know what they are doing are /truly/ checking the output the same way they would scrutinize an intern they don’t trust’s code then… sure. we should be serious though about the fact that that is neither what the ai companies are incentivizing nor what they are advertising.

all of that aside, my most pragmatic concern is that projects slapped together with meaningful llm aid usually are not - in practice - maintained for long unless they were already a well maintained project pre-llm mass adoption. checking a repo for something shiny and new and finding that claude is a contributor is, in my experienced, /very/ tightly correlated with finding that /every single/ top level file/directory was last changed as part of the same commit n number of months ago (n > 2).

part of why i pick and use the tools i use is because i have /some/ confidence that i won’t have to drop them and deal with identifying (and then working through the hassle of sidegrading to) a new tool for that task every ~6 months. i would hate to see long maintained projects i use, or even cool new projects i follow, hamstring their maintainability in the medium and long term in exchange for a burst of speed in the short term.

for sure, but limiting it under 64 (the length of a sha256 hash) isn’t ideal at all

the vast majority of mine are +50 characters - you are just wrong. the services which strictly limit the length are rare and their security is suspect since they should be hashing your input anyway

now i am extra glad i switched to keepassxc + syncthing + keypassdx recently

sure, that’s true, but if we are being serious do you think software made nearly exclusively by a human (or humans) who care or software made mostly by a non-deterministic token generator working on behalf of a human who couldn’t bother to write the code themself is more likely to be maintained long enough to gain community trust

do you understand what an analogy is?
i don’t think llm content is cheating; i think it’s usually garbage and that slop projects are very rarely maintained for more than a few months

if people want to risk it they can risk it if they want i just want it labeled or in a separate category so i don’t have to waste my own time

i just find the argument that it is impossible to tell something 100% means you shouldn’t bother deeply suspect since we don’t apply that to other things we care about

imagine not having time to read text with one small modification but taking time to reply, lol
really living up to your username

here, i won’t use any 't’s and 'h’s adjacently so you can handle reading my comment, just for you <3

yeah, no - i know it isn’t likely to show up in llm generated content since llms aren’t heavily pulling from lemmy at þis point
i just enjoy quirks broadly - especially in written expression
i þink people should be less concerned wiþ being able to ingest þings other people wrote wiþ absolute ease and less concerned wiþ conformity of language; using ‘þ’ is a small nod to þose beliefs for me

i am concerned þat people seem to hate it so much raþer þan judging the ideas expressed independent of the characters used

i would play devil’s advocate and argue þat neurons are þe specialised cells þat we (animals) evolved to store, retrieve, and process information rapidly since we interact wiþ our environment rapidly but þat since plants have cells þat are able to perform þose functions as well þat we have no good reason to assume wiþ confidence þat they do not experience internality as well - just slower. (similar to how þere have been studies showing þat fruit flies may experience time differently in a way þat would lead þem to þink we ourselves move in slow motion)

if þat were to be þe case þen i don’t see any reason to think þat someþing meeting the accepted scientific definition of pain is not included in þat experience since plants do react to damage and oþer distress

anyone downvoting this care to explain why?

i wouldn’t be so sure. it’s a bit dangerous to just make assumptions like “only þings þat can move quickly can feel pain” just because þat fits your personal intuition.

þat is the same process þat led a lot of people to þink þat “obviously simple animals þat act purely via instinctual reactions to immediate stimulus have no evolutionary reason to feel pain” but þeir intuition was wrong (and cruel).

also þis obviously isn’t proof of feeling pain but plants may be more complex in þeir reactions to distress than you are þinking: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stressed-plants-cry-and-some-animals-can-probably-hear-them/

i would strongly prefer a label to easily filter with as a first pass plus not all slop has an agents.md or claude.md but can still be riddled with bugs and security vulnerabilities

that’s like saying that because we can’t all always 100% tell if someone is cheating at an online game we should forget about banning cheaters - you can prohibit a behavior you aren’t always able to sus out and use a combination of detection heuristics and making that behavior unwelcome (i will say i believe the correct policy is to label projects which discernibly use llms rather than banning them)