Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please make my predictions come out wrong.
[flagged]
[deleted]
Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
81–90 of 285 posts
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#82"LLM-assisted code review won't be a huge disruptor" is quite the prediction. Because it already is in a very big way. The take on LLMs seems incredibly out of date and out of touch with reality. (Which of course, has moved/advanced very fast the past months/year)
He explains how he thinks it won’t be a disruptor:
> Just on that repeated experience, I suspect we have already seen more than half of the “worst software bugs found with LLM-tools” list.
On the other hand, it’s not clear to me how you think that it already is “in a very big way”.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the force of that argument. Where is the "so" coming from?
I don't understand what's hard to understand. Regulation that affects people and devices that have no risk of being used for the purported thing that's supposed to be protected against is not well-scoped.
Obviously if the government knew that you had no kids, they wouldn't need to check it. How do you propose they find out, without asking you to prove it?
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
In many areas, this is left up to the parents - minors can't buy alcohol at stores, but parents are legally allowed to give alcohol to their children to drink.
You could always sign your kid into tik tok to avoid age restrictions if you want. Same thing
I think the distinction the comment is drawing is about the legality of it not the practical feasibility .
It would be illegal under the currently proposed /implemented laws and also open up social media to liability, which wouldn’t be true for other products like Alcohol or fire arms that require minimum age to buy but not give to children
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#85I tried to give this a fair chance but it's really an incoherent rant. There is nothing of substance here. You don't like AI, I get. But it still exists and pretending that no-one finds it useful is utterly foolish. Edit: I overuse the word utterly. Nice to identify one of my tells.
He acknowledged the LLM tools are useful, and ponder on the economic viability. I don’t see something that seems to say he doesn’t like AI? he seems to be mostly a critic of AI boosters
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#86I don't think age restriction will impact FOSS in the long term. If there are some regulations that threaten FOSS now, they are going to be adopted in the long term. Regulations for age restriction are understandable. A lot of modern technology is harming kids (and I don't mean dirty videos, social media seems to be much more harmful). A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents, but require r…
> A lot of modern technology is harming kids (and I don't mean dirty videos, social media seems to be much more harmful).
If that's all we want then that's trivial -- just make certain phones that don't have access to social media, or have whatever limitations enforced. And kids only get those phones. I don't think anybody's addicted to desktop social media.
This gets us the privacy and the protection at once.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you continue reading? His argument is exactly that, like all the previous model checkers, LLM's are going to give us some bugs for a while. Then that is going to stop. His argument is not that they aren't going to find any bugs, but rather that at some point those bugs will be fixed. At which point we will continue on as usual.
> At which point we will continue on as usual. This part is the load bearing claim. Why would you continue on as usual? I'm using LLM's everyday on code reviews and they still catch bugs.
The question is whether the balance of white-hat and black-hat LLM bug findings gives us a different enough result from the previous balance of white-hat and black-hat human bug findings to constitute a major disruption.
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I strongly disagree. There are no kids in my household, and no one else ever uses my devices, so the idea that I need to prove that I'm not a kid for me to be able to pay bills or file taxes on a stock device is ridiculous.
"Age restriction" can be implemented where stock devices are completely unrestricted. For example, just with better parental controls and education: children don't have access to property, so the parent takes their device and enables the parental controls, but you own your device so leave them disabled. And this wouldn't affect Linux or FOSS: on a child's device their parent installs either a proprietary OS or a FOSS…
[deleted]
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At which point we will continue on as usual. This part is the load bearing claim. Why would you continue on as usual? I'm using LLM's everyday on code reviews and they still catch bugs.
The question is whether the balance of white-hat and black-hat LLM bug findings gives us a different enough result from the previous balance of white-hat and black-hat human bug findings to constitute a major disruption.
I don't understand your point. How do you make your future code resistant to bugs without LLMs?
Re: Goodbye, and Thanks for All the Bikesheds
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A sensible regulator would leave some responsibility to the parents (Speaking as a parent of three) why can't we just leave all responsibility to the parents? In our experience in the offline world it seems this applies! I speak as someone who's taken each of my three children - for two of them, multiple times - to the emergency room to be treated for broken bones incurred in the course of Real Life[tm]. Yes, they…
Even in the offline world that is not the case. Ex. Alkohol sales
An analogous good implementation of age restriction is that one must show their ID to buy an unrestricted device if they look too young.
They can't be tracked, as long as the devices are in randomly sorted identical boxes. Of course someone can buy a device and give it to a kid, but that's already possible with alcohol (and legal if it's their kid).