151–160 of 168 posts
It is fine to have corners of the internet that run in a particular way. My issue however, is that this is changing the rules on people. Codeberg initially was a FLOSS alternative to big company Github. Now it's more narrow, an alternative to Github and only for people who don't want to use AI. What's the next step? This is the problem, you either a platform and be, within legal reasons, agnostic, or you are trying t…
[flagged]
Hiiiiii, developer who hates LLMs here. waves I think I've avoided all of the LLM debate thus far, but I figure that some of my actual positions probably ought to be represented in this discussion instead of shadow-boxing. I hate LLMs because I've had to sink a lot of hours into defending services and content that I host for myself or for others from companies that couldn't be bothered to write polite crawlers. This…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you and the code you make. More like: > You are creating software using a tool incurring massive risks and costs for the rest of us even though we don't use it ourselves, we don't want you here . > plenty of people are using open offline models to code …that needed…
Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! World: creates LLMs Open source developer: >:( Maybe don't open source your software if you're going to get mad about it?
Do LLM companies give back to the community?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the actual terms? It's quite clear, it says mostly written by AI.
Yeah, that doesn't mean anything in a world of agentic tooling. That's why folks are seeking clarification of what "mostly" means. Like more than 50% of the characters in the source code? From a harness? Tab-based autocomplete? Function completion? As I said, it's simplistic thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you and the code you make. The funny thing about this comment is out of the gate it screams the exact reason people don't want the LLM generated code in their zone. This reads similar to people who make prompt art getting upset that they're not taken seriously. Peop…
I can see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a counterpoint to that. When you play the "didn't earn" card, you are really getting nowhere. It's a bad argument. It's putting up the gate, "I feel you didn't work hard enough for X result, but I did, so I must be better" I drive a manual car. Should I hate every automatic car driver? I have a master's degree in cybersecurity; should I shit on everyone who do…
But try the other shoe on and walk a mile. You like writing code and solving problems yourself. Everyone in the world is telling you you’re irrelevant and should start using the machine or get left behind. The future is here and you’re not a part of it unless you give up and join us. Constantly.
It was hard before LLMs to convince software developers, let alone managers and product people and everyone else, to take quality seriously. Now it’s orders of magnitude harder. Because anything you say is met with someone who doesn’t care and thinks it’s all irrelevant. The machine will get better. It will solve all of these problems. Give up.
Fortunately that hasn’t deterred craftspeople in other trades who made knives, custom cabinetry, boats, houses and the like. Sure automation and progress has made a lot of knives available. Maybe more than we need. And most of them are disposable crap. But there are still knife makers.
All this talk of being reasonable is hard to take seriously when neither side will consider the other.
It’s also possible that even after considering all of the technical features and capabilities that LLMs bring to software development that some folks don’t find the cost of using them to be worth it. So they can say, “Sure, I will use such tools when and if I deem it appropriate.” Which may be never.
But we’re in a world right now where you can be coerced into feeling like there’s no choice but to accept those trade offs and just use the LLM.
I think it’s interesting and good that there exist places for people who share similar goals. There are few places for people who want to just do programming to chill out and not be surrounded by LLM generated code.
Also the scraping situation is totally getting out of hand. Having to keep up services is not easy or fun work. It’s just toil created at the expense of many for the benefit of few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the question is a classic case of jaqing off. Not a single person is in actual doubt which side of the line they fall on. Your second paragraph is a strawman.
Not true. I have no idea if the "majority" of my recent projects was authored by AI. It's a hodge-podge that I've assembled by tweaking things myself, deleting wrong tracks, implementing touchy logic myself, and had AI do lots of boilerplate, over hundreds of commits and thousands of back and forth interactions. In world where we cannot copyright facts, but we can copyright compendiums, we've demonstrated that we ack…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that doesn't mean anything in a world of agentic tooling. That's why folks are seeking clarification of what "mostly" means. Like more than 50% of the characters in the source code? From a harness? Tab-based autocomplete? Function completion? As I said, it's simplistic thinking.
If you aren't sure, then you're on the wrong side of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you aren't sure, then you're on the wrong side of it.
That's not true just because you say it is. You're rejecting the notion that the rule is written badly, and as an excuse for other problems, and, as written, is actually unenforceable. If I pushed my repos, they wouldn't even be able to tell that the code was written by AI, because I author every commit. Silly argument. Time will judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiiiiii, developer who hates LLMs here. waves I think I've avoided all of the LLM debate thus far, but I figure that some of my actual positions probably ought to be represented in this discussion instead of shadow-boxing. I hate LLMs because I've had to sink a lot of hours into defending services and content that I host for myself or for others from companies that couldn't be bothered to write polite crawlers. This…
I dislike current-gen AI for much the same reasons you mentioned: the externalities its development & use are causing. The tech itself is neutral in this respect. It's those externalities that need to be addressed. Don't want to depend on a subscription service? Then run open models under your own control (if you 'have to' use AI). Don't want that new datacenter disturbing a town's water supply? Make 'em pay extra su…
[flagged]
Hiiiiii, developer who hates LLMs here. waves I think I've avoided all of the LLM debate thus far, but I figure that some of my actual positions probably ought to be represented in this discussion instead of shadow-boxing. I hate LLMs because I've had to sink a lot of hours into defending services and content that I host for myself or for others from companies that couldn't be bothered to write polite crawlers. This…
I hate LLMs because their pushers are hurrying us into the next financial crisis, which will impoverish another generation.
I hate LLMs because they have captured pretty much all R&D investment when we have far more important and urgent existential problems to solve. The world is literally burning in front of us, but no time for that because an even bigger model might make 0.03% less mistakes.