31–40 of 141 posts
> It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves.
> Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work".
Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
https://jqwik.net/release-notes.html
> Warning: Do not use this release with an „AI“ Coding Agent of any form. The tool‘s output may confuse the agent and make it do unwanted things. See the paragraph in the user guide for details.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
How is it malware tho? Do you not check the output your agents produce?
Also presumably if using Git even if it did, it wouldn't be such a huge deal?
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
Would never use anything by a maintainer who adds malicious code or instructions to their codebase to attack less experienced users, same thing.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
Some comments from the dev on the GitHub thread: > It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves. > Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work". Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.
How is it malware tho? Do you not check the output your agents produce?
Would you count this as malware if it was about the author trying to profit or steal from inattentive people using AI? You know, he could be putting those stolen goods towards a good cause, like Robin Hood.