- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Cool. Let the slop users go join the fascist DHH in Omacom. Then again, I’m giving a much closer look at Haiku & BSD again since a slop generator was used in the Linux kernel.
A maintainer. Apparently went into a hissy fit because people pointed out to him that he broke the rules. That said, the critics probably weren’t very nice to him either.
Ah, Linux drama.
BTW, the rules sound sensible to me:
"In this section, “AI” refers to generative artificial intelligence tools, including Large Language Models and similar technologies.
All contributions are expected to be made by humans. AI tools may be used for research and learning, but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor. This includes code, documentation, issues, security reports, pull request descriptions, and comments in all Void Linux community spaces.
ALL usage of AI tools MUST be disclosed.
Do not bring AI review tools into pull requests.
Usage of AI-powered human-language translation tools is acceptable to facilitate contributions across language barriers."
Esp. this part: “contributions must (…) be understood by the contributor.”
I’m in a smaller community that sees a lot of AI-supported app development recently and while the outcome can occasionally be good, I’m not sure it’s worth taking those with all the vibe coded projects that come along, and their “developers” that tend to get very defensive when simply asked about things.
Not saying this is the case here though.
On the rules, citing hperrin:
It sounds like their policy is basically the same as Human Contribution Policy 2-TR. That’s awesome.
Great that people are working on that. And adopting it.
I think establishing new rules and boundaries in a new territory will never happen entirely without conflict. Nice if people still behave like gentlemen.
but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor.
why did you omit the important part of that quote
Probably because it isn’t actually the important part. And also because he did, in fact, quote it in full before repeating the part he found important.
I think the thing I hate most about AI is what it has done to all of our psyche. Look at this.
Yeah it really fucks with your psyche.
That, at first glance, you cannot distinguish any digital work from being real work, or the result of telling an AI to do it. And the result isn’t anybody’s work. Except of those the AI stole from.
But I have seen meltdowns like this long before any sort of LLM-based fakery.
As I wrote before: “Linux drama”
I’m so tired of “Ai big number” headlines. 100+ packages - but how many good ones? (Genuinely, I don’t know, as I don’t the recognize those listed.)
We need projects that diligently keep the slop out. We don’t need every protect to do so, but it is critical that some do.
We have Meta and Microsoft to provide quick-to-market low quality shit.
The version of Linux that matters is the slow thoughtful good software.
I’m not mad at slop slingers, aa long as they don’t secretly inject slop risk where not welcome.
Edit: Thanks for responses.
For anyone who has read this far, I encourage seeing responses below for informative and nuanced thoughts on this.
I’m so tired of “Ai big number” headlines. 100+ packages - but how many good ones? (Genuinely, I don’t know, as I don’t the recognize those listed.)
There might be a bit confusion. A package maintainer does not (necessarily) author the packages (the source code of the projects they contain), but typically maintains build scripts and security patches for upstream packages maintained by their authors. This is necessary because build systems and scripts are complex and packages from one distro would usually not fit into another one.
In other words, most code he/she produces are build scripts, and testing and adapting updates. And yes, this is still a lot of work.
A lot of those packages are pretty core to deployments, the docker ones in particular are probably on every developer/homelabber using void (so everyone probably?)
The docker runtimes handle a lot of the container sandboxing and security configuration, and are a huge source of container escape vulnerability.
It is a small and comperatively frugal distro. Which pretty much makes sense for an AI-free distro.
The now orphaned packages include Adapta, Autodia, SFML, abootimg, alacritty, arpwatch, asus-kbd-backlight, backblaze-b2, bash-preexec, beep, binfmt-support, bitlbee-facebook, bitlbee-steam, cdm, clementine, crane, csound, daemonize, darkhttpd, dep, diff-pdf, docker-cli, docker-gc, docker-gen, dtc, embree, entr, etcd, fcron, flannel, flint, font-fontin, forego, freeplane, fscrypt, gede, gettext-stub, git-cola, gkill, glock, go-bindata, go-jira, hans, hivex, hopper, hostaliases, hugo, iio-sensor-proxy, indicator-doom-cpu, interbench, ispc, jbigkit, kaitai-struct-compiler, kubernetes, kvirc, libguestfs, libnfc, libpodofo0.9.7, logstalgia, massren, mbox, mfoc, mkinitcpio-nfs-utils, mksh, moby, motion, openresolv, packer, pd, perl-Template-Toolkit, pinktrace, podofo, python3-Arrow, python3-b2sdk, python3-pdm-backend, python3-xattr, racket, rakarrack, rancher-compose, rmlint, rng-tools, rocker, runit-swap, sassc, scanmem, schroot, sift, splix, sublime-text3, subtle, supermin, sydbox, tag, tbb, terraform, terragrunt, texmaker, thermald, trollock, ttf-ubuntu-font-family, urbanterror-data, urbanterror, usbredir, vagrant, vba-m, virt-manager, virtme, webcat, websocketd, wpa_actiond, xboxdrv, xcompmgr, and yoshimi.
I am using a few of them, for example virt-manager and racket.
The handful that’ve crossed paths with are mostly dependencies of things i actually use. The rest happen to the worst packages i’ve ever used for those programmes, or just inferior products when compared to the alternatives
Good good.
- AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
- we shouldn’t just use its code blindly. I’ve vibecoded a couple of personal projects, and I can confidently tell you that the code isn’t the best and, at times, it can be massively messy and even shit, but it works. I didn’t care because those were personal projects that have zero risk for me. We all need to be in a mindset of agreement on certain rules. Because fighting over it won’t do anyone any good. This is reality and will still be reality even if we fought over it
Murder is here to stay; murder can solve many problems; murder is never going away, unless there are no more humans on the planet; we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can
We shouldnt just use it to solve problems blindly. It can have terrible consequences if not used carefully
We all need to be in a mindset of agreement on certain rules. Fighting over it wont do anyone any good; this is reality and will still be reality even if we fought over it
I dunno. I feel like if this tech was so good the results would speak for themself. Instead I just get told that I must use it and that it is here to stay and other constant propaganda.
I’ve vibecoded a couple of personal projects, and I can confidently tell you that the code isn’t the best and, at times, it can be massively messy and even shit, but it works
as someone who doesn’t code, this terrifies me. We’re all kinda hoping that while we don’t exactly know what a program is doing, at least there was a human who wrote it to do something. Once we let AI write complex code that you guys don’t completely understand, how will we know what the hell is even going on??
I realise this might make me sound super dumb but honestly, as someone who is interested but simply can’t grasp the abstract nature of programming, this is how I feel when I read comments like these.
As someone who does code, this is a very valid concern you have. A lot of software is being built right now that not a single human actually understands. On some lever it could be possible to understand but that doesn’t change the fact no one does actually understand it.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s so advanced that we don’t understand it. The problem is it’s such a giant pile of shit that we don’t understand it.
As someone who does code, this is a very valid concern you have.
Especially if the code touches things where the stakes are high.
Integrity of systems e.g. used by dissidents in whatever authoritarian country.
Heavy machines.
Cars, trucks, trains, subways.
Industrial robots - if out of control, their force and speed can easily kill people.
Critical infrastructure for electricity, water, energy, payments, and transport.
Chemical factories.
Medical devices.
This list is expanding because more and more digital systems become enmeshed with the physical world.
You’re fighting back against things that have almost nothing to do with this topic, except the nowadays ever-present dividing triggerword.
You should read the article and/or some top comments. tl;dr: he wasn’t kicked out, he was criticized for breaking the rules and left in a hissy fit. It has comparatively little to do with AI, and in fact I have seen very similar thingshappening long before its advent into everyday life.
Don’t just automatically fight back. We need more nuance than that.
I can confidently tell you that the code isn’t the best and, at times, it can be massively messy and even shit, but it works.
Well, this “but it works” is kinda the accepted standard in the corporate world, but not in open source projects.
And for a good reason: Open source projects with multiple contributors do have a long-term interest on well maintainable, understandable code. Precisely because working on them is not a one man (or woman) show and resources are limited, and open source consists of thousands of smaller projects that interoperate, so the demand to support cooperation is a necessity.
Conversely, in the corporate world (and I sweepingly include companies using Linux and FOSS software), and with the prevailing capitalist mindset, technical sustainability just does not matter. What matters is the bottom line for the current quarter, and nothing else.
These two wildly different goals create different strategies, and they are not very compatible.
AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
Or choose not to, just because it’s there doesn’t make it mandatory or even a good idea.
It’ll be all around you. It’ll be forced on you whether you liked it or not. Do you have a phone? An android? iOS? They’ve both been using AI religiously. Hell, even the Linux kernel now has AI code. I get that you don’t like it, but you won’t be able to not use something that was made with it.
Hell, even the Linux kernel now has AI code.
Actually, AI reviewed code, which is not the same thing.
Most definitely isn’t.
And that’s as far as that topic goes nowadays with kernel devs. They’re not stupid.
doG I miss nuance in this whole pro/contra AI discussion. And it’s usually the “AI is here to stay whether you like it or not” crowd that doesn’t read or think before they type.
I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn’t mandatory to use it.
Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.
If you want to come at it from a “there is no ethical consumerism” point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.
There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life…
Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn’t make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.
“It’s already everywhere, so you might as well use it” isn’t a good catch-all policy and i don’t think it’s a good approach to this specific scenario.
But you do you.
So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
It might have some sensible uses (bug screening was mentioned) but if it causes a massive, devastating environmental load, it still might better to either not use it, or very sparingly.
A bit like opioids: They can cause a warm fuzzy feeling, and sometimes they are needed in medicine, but overall using them all the time would mean the disadvantages and costs are higher than the advantages.
Shredding the environment is a very high cost. I do not understand how people don´t get how serious is our climate situation. We only have this one wonderful planet. We are about to destroy it. There is no other place in the universe where we can go to and have a happy life.
but if it causes a massive, devastating environmental load, it still might better to either not use it, or very sparingly.
This part isn’t really down to AI though, we’re going to continue seeing huge increases in demand for electricity as more and more of the world industrializes and moves into middle class. This almost purely comes down to changing how we create electricity and that change needs to happen or we’re just as fucked either way.
We simply cannot conserve our way out of the emissions problem around electricity generation; the only option really is aggressive renewable and/or nuclear generation. And at that point, the extra electricity generation of AI use isn’t really an issue.
There are also the concerns around water use and cooling but that’s pretty much purely down to needed regulation like any other industry; there’s no real reason it needs to be wasteful with drinking water sources.
It might have some sensible uses (bug screening was mentioned)
Where I see it used pretty effectively is relatively simple automation of menial data tasks in the corporate world among non programmers. Basically, it’s bringing the kind of petty automation that people with a little programing experience have always been using to quietly automate their work, to the masses. We’re talking things like automatic SQL pulls for data that was previously being manually pulled.
That kind of thing does a lot for efficiency and isn’t even replacing programmers, as no companies would ever dedicate dev time to that kind of individual automation.
I tend to agree with the other guy, my experience in the corporate world is it is not going away. The hype some C levels are still high on about automating entire departments or AI app creation is ridiculous and will die off, but that kind of front lines, non-sexy, menial work… I can’t see that going anywhere.
AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet.
‘AI’ doesn’t exist, at least when that term is meant to reference Artificial Intelligence in relation to LLMs, as they are intrinsically incapable of possessing or providing comprehension.
LLMs aren’t going away, but that doesn’t translate to an expectation that we should all have to be exposed to their explosively imprecise slop ingestion and excretions.
So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
This fascistic, rape culture rhetoric further diminishes arguments of its inevitability. If that’s your kink, go ahead and debase yourself, but just like religious dogma, it ceases to be acceptable or tolerable the moment it’s imposed on those who don’t, or can’t, provide explicit, informed consent.
‘AI’ doesn’t exist, at least when that term is meant to reference Artificial Intelligence in relation to LLMs, as they are intrinsically incapable of possessing or providing comprehension.
An important point that deserves repeating, because the marketing PR around the LLMs borders large-scale disinformation.
Many people point out we should be more careful with language, and they are right.
They’re still within the field of AI study. Go to any major research conference.
‘AI’ is a marketing term, and has been since the term was conjured in 1956. Anyone who treats it as anything beyond that classification is a charlatan trying to punch down and grift others who know less than the little they do.
I suppose me and the rest of my colleagues at AAAI, IJCAI, FLAIRS, etc. don’t know what we’re talking about then
Studying something doesn’t make the subject legitimate. There are plenty of academic fields rooted in imaginary conjurings, like theology, economics, and business.
I trust you and your colleagues do, in fact, know what you’re talking about; my argument is if you’re claiming any function or output of a LLM should be in any way considered adjacent to intelligence, what you’re saying is gibberish.
So you just don’t understand what the term or field are. Shocker.
But I in an illegitimate field so what do I know. XD
AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away,
You could say the same about cars. An US American might not be able to imagine life without them. But while trucks, vans, and ambulances have their meaningful use, many European cities are moving away from allowing personal cars as dominant means of transport because bicycles and public transport are frankly better and do not impose such a high cost on the community.
Coming back to the AI topic, saying “it is here to stay” is not a valid reason to avoid discussion what it is good for, what are the costs. whether the Linux communities are willing to pay those costs, and whether there are perhaps better solutions for what AI promises.
Also, back when the tobacco industry was lobbying and promoting their products despite having knowledge of their massive consequences, it was seen as something that would “never go away”. Today there are laws in place that ban smoking outright in some places, so I hope AI gets the same treatment soon… That something is here, does not mean it has to be. Cancer is here too, but we’re still trying to do something about that.
There is a fascinating parallel to tobacco in that the LLM technology seems, like “social media”, to be deliberately engineered to be addictive by design. A thing we should focus more on.
(By the way, using cars is also somewhat addictive: Humans do have a time budget of about one hour per day for commuting and daily errands. If you start to use a car, the average distance you go daily will expand, and it is very difficult to go back from that, even if you don’t really have more time, or don’t need the car any more. This is probably relevant to ai because the mechanism by which cars hook us is that the brain stem is basically programmed to use alternatives which are less effort, and so people use the car for everything because it is so comfortable.)
AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
Sports will never go away but that doesn’t mean I have to watch them the best way I can. We don’t have to use AI even if it doesn’t go away.
I don’t find the things I can run on my own computer very useful, so I’ll pass.
