41–50 of 303 posts
I was thinking of using it for my full stack Rust apps just so everything works with cargo and I don't have to bring in SQLite separately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. Pandora's box has been opened, let's deal with the consequences now instead of trying to shut the box which cannot be shut.
> I think people would be more interested in listening to "AI skeptics" if they offered realistic solutions to the problems they predict. AI is the fucking problem. Yes, it has (some) uses. It is not nearly the number advertised. And more and more the median use case seems to be, again, overloading people actually trying to do work with an avalanche of bullshit. The solution is exactly what the linked article says: s…
Oh look it's more of exactly what AI skeptics said would happen: low effort bullshit generated at scale making life hell for people actually trying to make things. That's wild. Edit: it is genuinely wild, I don't know of another product category that selects so perfectly for the WORST type of person to be it's enthusiast. Just every single person I see hyped about AI is fucking insufferable on at least one and usuall…
Isn't there some alternative approach? I.e when someone submit ai slop they get a strike. Three strikes and you are suspended from submitting to the bug bounty for x months/years? *Edit - I get it. It seems like the authentication is a challenge.
How about "It costs $1000 to submit a bug bounty for approval", and raise the reward to $2000 (or $5000 if it's in the cards, since that will have a deterrant impact on non-AI responses). Denominated in BTC to avoid chargebacks etc.
https://github.com/UnsafeLabs/Bounty-Hunters
The corresponding leaderboard:
Can't they just beat them at their own game and deploy their own AI bots to pre-screen the PRs?
> It is possible to set up automated systems to gatekeep this, but with a non-negligible dollar value attached to it, the incentive is just too great for the AIs to just keep arguing, reopening the same PR, etc.
Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
I was (almost) just that guy for one PR. Removed something like 20% or more of the codebase by leveraging the libraries and external tools we already had in use better, but it meant almost every single thing we were doing had to use the library function instead of the one we wrote. But assuming you have good regression tests and linters, so you know the code works and it's not terrible, the review should be more abou…
Which goes on to prove that bottleneck isn't in writing the code. It is in reading and understanding the code. We all had that one "productive" engineer in our teams who would write huge PRs that would have large swaths of refactoring whether warranted or not and that was way before anyone even could imagine in their wildest dreams that neural networks could generate that huge amounts of code. The net effect of such…
I don't understand why one wouldn't just auto reject big PRs and tell them to make smaller ones. Sounds like it's a communication and social problem, not a technological one. Even with AI, just tell it to make smaller self contained PRs. I do this with Claude or GPT models and they do just fine.
Do you want one big PR or 100 small ones? You can't escape the sheer volume of code it's going to produce.