241–250 of 427 posts
This is the target group for code generators. All talk but no projects.
It should be possible to build a useful AI code generator for a given programming language solely from the source code for the language itself. Doing so however would require some maturity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel like we'd be hearing from business that crushed their competition by delivering faster or with fewer people. Where are those businesses? As if tech part was the major part of getting the product to market. Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just aren't open about admitting they're using AI to speed up their marketing/product design/programming/project management/graphics design, because a) it's n…
> Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just aren't open about admitting "Where's the evidence?" "Probably everywhere." OK, good luck, have fun
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason these fully functional ai generated projects that the authors vibe out while playing guitar and clipping their toenails are never open source.
Going by the standard of "But there are also local tools generated faster than you could adjust existing tools to do what you want", here's a random one of mine that's in regular use by my wife: https://github.com/TeMPOraL/qr-code-generator Built with Aider and either Sonnet 3.5 or Gemini 2.5 Pro (I forgot to note that down in this project), and recently modified with Claude Code because I had to test it on something…
https://github.com/neocotic/qrious
All the hard work was made by humans.
I can do `npm install` without having to pay for AI, thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> or public domain https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ai-art-us-copyright-office... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput... Im pretty sure that this ship has sailed.
It's sailed, but towards the other way: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
1. If you come up with something completely new, you are the sole copyright holder.
2. If you take someone else's copyrighted work and transform it, then both of you have a copyright on the derivative work.
So if you write a brand new comic book that includes Darth Vader, you can't sell that without Disney's permission [1]: they have a copyright on Darth Vader, and so your comic book is partly copyrighted by them. But at the same time, they can't sell it without your permission, because you have a copyright on the comic book too.
In the case of Midjourney outputs, my understanding of the current state of the law is this:
1. Only humans can create copyrights
2. So if Midjourney creates an entirely new image that's not derivative of anyone else's work (as defined by long-established copyright law on derivative works), then nobody owns the copyright, and it's in the public domain
3. If Midjourney creates an image that is derived from someone else's work (as defined by long established copyright law on derivative works), then only Disney has a copyright on that derivative work.
And so, in theory, Disney could distribute Darth Vader images you made with Midjourney, unless you can convince the court that you had enough creative influence over them to warrant a copyright.
[1] Yes of course fair use, trying to make a point here
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd also worry that a language model is much more likely to introduce subtle logical errors, potentially ones which violate the hypervisor's security boundaries - and a user relying heavily on that model to write code for them will be much less prepared to detect those errors.
Generally speaking AI will make it easier to write more secure code. Tooling and automation help a lot with security and AI makes it easier to write good tooling. I would wager good money that in a few years the most security-focused companies will be relying heavily on AI somewhere in their software supply chain. So I don't think this policy is about security posture. No doubt human experts are reviewing the securit…
I'd argue that the most impactful software security bugs in the last couple of decades (Heartbleed etc) have been errors of omission, rather than errors of inclusion.
This means LLMs are:
1) producing lots more code to be audited
2) poor at auditing that code for the most impactful class of bugs
That feels like a dangerous combination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those businesses are probably everywhere. They just aren't open about admitting "Where's the evidence?" "Probably everywhere." OK, good luck, have fun
Yup. Or, "Just look around!".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you show these 3 things to us?
Only the simplest one is open (and before you discount it as too trivial, somehow none of the other ones did what I wanted) https://github.com/viraptor/pomodoro The others are just too specific for me to be useful for anyone else: an android app for automatic processing of some text messages and a work scheduling/prioritising thing. The time to make them generic enough to share would be much longer than creating my s…
Welcome to the reality of software development. "Works on my machine" is often not good enough to make the cut.
Interesting. Harder line than the LLVM one found at https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#ai-generated-cont... I'm very old man shouting at clouds about this stuff. I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand and I don't want to merge code neither of us understand.
>I don't want to review code the author doesn't understand I get that. But the AI tooling when guided by a competent human can generate some pretty competent code, a lot of it can be driven entirely through natural language instructions. And every few months, the tooling is getting significantly more capable. I'm contemplating what exactly it means to "understand" the code though. In the case of one project I'm worki…
You can't seriously be questioning the meaning of "understand"... That's straight from Jordan B. Peterson's debate playbook which does nothing but devolve the conversation into absurdism, while making the person sound smart.
> I've set up a test cluster and am running a variety of testing scenarios on the new storage backend. So I understand it from a high level design, and from the testing of it.
You understand the system as well as any user could. Your tests only prove that the system works in specific scenarios, which may very well satisfy your requirements, but they absolutely do not prove that you understand how the system works internally, nor that the system is implemented with a reliable degree of accuracy, let alone that it's not misbehaving in subtle ways or that it doesn't have security issues that will only become apparent when exposed to the public. All of this might be acceptable for a tool that you built quickly which is only used by yourself or a few others, but it's far from acceptable for any type of production system.
> As someone who spent months tracking down subtle bugs in early Linux ZFS ports, I deeply understand that significant testing can trump human authorship and review of every line of code.
This doesn't match my (~20y) experience at all. Testing is important, particularly more advanced forms like fuzzing, but it's not a failproof method of surfacing bugs. Tests, like any code, can itself have bugs, it can test the wrong things, setup or mock the environment in ways not representative of real world usage, and most importantly, can only cover a limited amount of real world scenarios. Even in teams that take testing seriously, achieving 100% coverage, even for just statements, is seen as counterproductive and as a fool's errand. Deeply thorough testing as seen in projects like SQLite is practically unheard of. Most programmers I've worked with will often only write happy path tests, if they bother writing any at all.
Which isn't to say that code review is the solution. But a human reviewing the code, building a mental model of how it works and how it's not supposed to work, can often catch issues before the code is even deployed. It is at this point that writing a test is valuable, so that that specific scenario is cemented in the checks for the software, and regressions can be avoided.
So I wouldn't say that testing "trumps" reviews, but that it's not a reliable way of detecting bugs, and that both methods should ideally be used together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sailed, but towards the other way: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo
On the contrary. IANAL, but this is my understanding of the law (setting aside the "work for hire" thing for simplicity) 1. If you come up with something completely new, you are the sole copyright holder. 2. If you take someone else's copyrighted work and transform it, then both of you have a copyright on the derivative work. So if you write a brand new comic book that includes Darth Vader, you can't sell that withou…
I wonder what counts for transformed, is a filter enough or does it have to be more than that?