121–130 of 293 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People's trust on LLM imo stems from the lack of awareness of AI hallucinating. Hallucination benchmarks are often hidden or talked about hastily in marketing videos.
[flagged]
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted with no feedback, which is fine I guess, so I am just going to share some more colour on my opinion in case I am being misunderstood
What I meant with analogous to phishing is that the intent for the work is likely the one of personal reward and perhaps less of the desire to contribute. I was thinking they want their name on the contributors list, they want the credit, they want something and they don't want to put effort on it.
Do they deserve to be ridiculed for doing that? Maybe. However, I like to think humans deserve kindness sometimes. It's normal to want something, and I agree that it is not okay to be selfish and lazy about it (ignoring contribution rules and whatnot), so at minimum I think respect applies.
Some people are ignorant, naive, and are still maturing and growing. Bullying them may not help (thought it could) and mockery is a form of aggression.
I think some true false positives will fall into that category and pay the price for those who are truly ill intended.
Lastly, to ridicule is to care. To hate or attack requires caring about it. It requires effort, energy, and time from the maintainers. I think this just adds more waste and is more wasteful.
Maybe those wordings are there just to 'scare' people away and maintainers won't bother engaging, though I find it is just compounding the amount of garbage at this point and nobody benefits from it.
Anyways, would appreciate some feedback from those of you that seem to think otherwise.
Thanks!
PS: What I meant with ghostty should "ghost" them was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_banning
The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
> The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. ever had a client second guess you by replying you a screenshot from GPT? ever asked anything in a public group only to have a complete moron replying you with a screenshot from GPT or - at least a bit of effor there - a copy/paste of the wall of text? no, people have no shame. they have a need for a l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have." And this is one half of why I think "Bad AI drivers will be [..] ridiculed in public." isn't a good clause. The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Putting it as a rule in your policy document makes it only worse.
> The other is that ridiculing others, not matter what, is just no decent behavior. Shaming people for violating valid social norms is absolutely decent behaviour. It is the primary mechanism we have to establish social norms. When people do bad things that are harmful to the rest of society, shaming them is society's first-level corrective response to get them to stop doing bad things. If people continue to violate…
TLDR don't be an asshole and produce good stuff. But I have the feeling that this is not the right direction for the future. Distrust the process: only trust the results. Moreover this policy is strictly unenforceable because good AI use is indistinguishable from good manual coding. And sometimes even the reverse. I don't believe in coding policies where maintainers need to spot if AI is used or not. I believe in exp…
There's some sensible, easily-judged-by-a-human rules in here. I like the spirit of it and it's well written (I assume by Mitchell, not Claude, given the brevity).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…
People's trust on LLM imo stems from the lack of awareness of AI hallucinating. Hallucination benchmarks are often hidden or talked about hastily in marketing videos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…
My boss says it's because they are backed by trillion dollar companies and the companies would face dire legal threats if they did not ensure the correctness of AI output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Problem is people seriously believe that whatever GPT tells them must be true, because… I don't even know. Just because it sounds self-confident and authoritative? Because computers are supposed to not make mistakes? Because talking computers in science fiction do not make mistakes like that? The fact that LLMs ended up having this particular failure mode, out of all possible failure modes, is incredibly unfortunate…
Last year I had to deal with a contractor who sincerely believed that a very popular library had some issue because it was erroring when parsing a chatgpt generated json... I'm still shocked, this is seriously scary
The biggest surprise to me with all this low-quality contribution spam is how little shame people apparently have. I have a handful of open source contributions. All of them are for small-ish projects and the complexity of my contributions are in the same ball-park as what I work on day-to-day. And even though I am relatively confident in my competency as a developer, these contributions are probably the most thoroug…
TBH Im not sure if this is a "growing up in a good area" vibe. But over the last decade or so I have had to slowly learn the people around me have no sense of shame. This wasnt their fault, but mine. Society has changed and if you don't adapt you'll end up confused and abused. I am not saying one has to lose their shame, but at best, understand it.
Just like pain is a good thing, it tells you and signals to remove your hand from the stove.