261–270 of 602 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about Ladybird, AI and its effects on communities. Stickers start conversations with people I have common interests with in unexpected places. I didn't know of this effect until I experienced it a couple of times, so that's why I keep them. The reason I started was, to be completely honest with you, to show off my "skills" and beliefs. To be fair, I was much younger and naive. Strong evidence against your…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you expect your government to navigate whatever transition might await us in a manner that works out well for the vast majority of your countrymen? No, but I expect them to do the best they can, with the information they have available, as always, as they just like me, are just humans. Trusting the legislative branch of my government is different from "so you think it'll work out well for everyone then huh?", bt…
> Trusting the legislative branch of my government is different from "so you think it'll work out well for everyone then huh?", btw. Agreed, and that was exactly my point. Concern about possible impacts of a technology were expressed and you responded that you trust your government. But that's not the same as thinking that everything is headed in a good direction and doesn't require intervention. > Why does it matter…
I've been looking a lot at Godot (another big open source project) PRs lately, and there's been kind of a surge of wholy ai-generated PRs (both code and description). This is agains project-policy, so people creating these PRs usually get mildly told off. What's surprising is that while many submitters take that fairly well, some people get really indignant, essentially calling the maintainers ungrateful. It's kinda…
I can imagine in these cases the LLM is telling the "contributor" how smart they are and how much the project is loosing out, maybe saying something like: "It's not about maintaining project boundaries, it’s not about ensuring code quality; it’s a gatekeeping mechanism designed by traditionalists who feel threatened by forward-thinking creators like you who truly master the efficiency of AI."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about Ladybird, AI and its effects on communities. Stickers start conversations with people I have common interests with in unexpected places. I didn't know of this effect until I experienced it a couple of times, so that's why I keep them. The reason I started was, to be completely honest with you, to show off my "skills" and beliefs. To be fair, I was much younger and naive. Strong evidence against your…
[flagged]
Zig is moving to this direction is well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see AI as a barrier remover. Unfortunately some barriers are good or minimally necessary. I think we'll need to revert to artificial barriers such as bonds, e.g., if you want to do a PR to my repository you need to pay a 10 dollar bond. If the PR is good and I want future PRs, you keep your bond. If it's slop and spam, I get 10 dollars for my time.
We already have trouble with people maintaining open source projects without getting paid, now you want people to pay for the privilege to participate in free work?
It's surprising to me how many people here seem offended that someone might just not want their code. I guess it takes quite a lot of experience as a maintainer to realize that 'free' in 'free code contributions by strangers' is like 'free' in 'free puppy'.
What made open source great, is the fact that if you find a problem, you can patch it. It's what motivated me, anyway. Ladybird is not SQLite, it's under development and very likely will be forever. To me it looks like they are transitioning into a company, where this model makes sense.
What exactly is different now?
> it's under development and very likely will be forever.
So is Sqlite. Last time I checked they are still actively developing Sqlite.
Do you mean you can't just grab a current release and hold on to that? Well it's pre-alpha... That's the point...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see AI as a barrier remover. Unfortunately some barriers are good or minimally necessary. I think we'll need to revert to artificial barriers such as bonds, e.g., if you want to do a PR to my repository you need to pay a 10 dollar bond. If the PR is good and I want future PRs, you keep your bond. If it's slop and spam, I get 10 dollars for my time.
This is entirely too much friction in the wrong place. Public open source will simply die before a system like that ever becomes the norm. The previous barriers worked because they were organically perfectly in line with a contributor's internal incentives. A contributor gains very little benefit from submitting a patch; the likelihood is infinitesimally small they'll ever get any career advancement, financial recomp…
I've been looking a lot at Godot (another big open source project) PRs lately, and there's been kind of a surge of wholy ai-generated PRs (both code and description). This is agains project-policy, so people creating these PRs usually get mildly told off. What's surprising is that while many submitters take that fairly well, some people get really indignant, essentially calling the maintainers ungrateful. It's kinda…
If a feature and ignored, it can forked to provide more value to the users.
If unaccepted bugfixes, the maintainers are just silly. They need to be forked off.