251–260 of 397 posts
a kernel module written entirely by AI, loading into ring 0, that the author admits has known issues and shouldnt be used in production. Were speedrunning the "insecure by default" era.
AI didn't write a driver for him. He ported the Linux driver to FreeBSD with some assistance from an LLM. What's more interesting to me is the licensing situation when this is done. Does the use of an LLM complicate it? Or is it just a derivative work which can be published under the ISC license [1] as well? [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
a kernel module written entirely by AI, loading into ring 0, that the author admits has known issues and shouldnt be used in production. Were speedrunning the "insecure by default" era.
https://grafana.com/blog/generative-ai-at-grafana-labs-whats...
Don't use it and don't use Grafana.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is a competitor for Asahi? What would that even entail? > Given that literally no one is enforcing this Presumably Apple's lawyers would enforce it.
I’ll believe it when I see a court case of them going after someone for some ai generated slop and they win. Don’t see much evidence of that happening right now, or really ever since the advent of these things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you can formalize your instructions Isn't that...code?
No. Think of all engineering disciplines that aren't software. Those all depend on human-language formal instructions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels like when 3D printers hit the consumer market and everyone declared that buying things was over, everyone will just print them at home. There's tons of benefits to standardised software too. Companies rely on the fact they can hire people who already know photoshop/xero/webpack/etc rather than having to train them from scratch on in house tools.
Business software is also useful because it gives companies a process to follow that even if not optimal, is probably better than what they’d come up with on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to buy one plane ticket when a person has a specific plan -- to attend a meeting or a conference, or to match up with an airbnb timeslot or something. It's harder to buy one plane ticket for the lowest cost amongst all the different ways that plane tickets can be bought, and harder yet to do so with a lack of specificity. So, for instance: Maybe I don't have a firm plan. Maybe I'm very flexible. Maybe all I…
But who is really going to put together the infrastructure and harness to make all that work? My dad certainly isn't. My mother in law won't What you describe will just end up a feature on Expedia. The highly technical builders of stuff that love to tinker vastly overestimate how much BS the general public will put up with
I didn't address that concept at all above, but I think the notion of a million people each independently using the bot to write a million bespoke programs that each do the same things is...kind of a non-starter. It's something that can only happen in some weird reality where software isn't essentially free to copy, and where people are motivated neither by laziness, nor the size of their pocketbook.
If/when someone does put the work into getting it to happen, then I expect to find it on Github for people to lazily copy and use, or for them to make it available as a website or app for anybody to use (with even more laziness) -- and for them to monetize it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got a sample you think is particularly bad?
Throwing myself to the sharks here, but sure. pcie.c /* * BAR0 register access */ uint32_t brcmf_reg_read(struct brcmf_softc *sc, uint32_t off) { return (bus_space_read_4(sc->reg_bst, sc->reg_bsh, off)); } Is sc null? Who knows! Was it memset anywhere? No! Were any structs memset anywhere? Barely! Does this codebase check for null? Maybe in 3% of the places it should! All throughout this codebase variables are declar…
Some application code bases I've worked in would have asserts in every function since they get removed in release builds but I don't know that debug builds are even a thing in kernel devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be? If you can describe an approximation of a system and regenerate it to be, let’s say, 98% accurate in 1% of the time that it would take to generate it by hand (and that’s being generous, it’s probably more like 0.1% in today’s day and age and that decimal is only moving left) aren’t there a giant set of use cases where the approximation of the system is totally fine? People will always bring up “but w…
You are just validating the point that code is spec. For your proposed system to work one must have a deterministic way of sending said spec to a system(Compiler?) and getting the same output everytime. Input/Output is just one thing, software does a lot of 'side effect' kind of work, and has security implications. You don't leave such things to luck. Things either work or don't.