cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/36079122
Mit Regulatory Capture sollen die aufholende Open-Weights-Konkurrenz vom Markt gedrängt, eigenes Entwicklerversagen kaschiert und überbewertete Geschäftsmodelle von OpenAI und Anthropic gerettet werden.
That would lead to an AI ice age. Surely not the worst development for Gaia and her children.
Fantastic. That’s USD 750 per Earth inhabitant. You could feed all of humanity for this, with is what is essentially needed.
Sometimes, I think the “AI” industry has an interest to keep the debate as polarized as possible. Because this keeps people from taking a sober look and examine rationally and objectively what they promise, vs. what they deliver.
We have several public debates which followed a similar pattern, such as the debates around climate protection and clean energy. (And lo and behold! Now “AI” is the reason we can’t have climate protection!)
Or the “AI arms race” argument, which honestly just reminds me in the enthusiasm, propaganda, and delusion that happened at the outbreak of WWI. Yes, modern weapons got “better”. But that made war just more lunatic. And now, you can kill a building full of school children with an “AI mistake”. Military people must be gleeful.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/36071801
This author trieds hard to do a pragmatic view. He does not mention ethical or ecological concerns (which should matter far more and subject to legal regulation IMO).
Instead, he focuses on the quality topic. His thinking is that companies are doing now a kind of quality arbitrage: Companies can make low-quality code at far cheaper costs, and sellthe result still at human-made prices. Which will only work for so long, he thinks: Customers will demand lower prices. (Easy to imagine a quality downward spiral.)
Which invokes the question: What has happened that people accept lower and lower quality? Is new software nowadays still really useful?
The agent would do things like create a new type definition in the same file as the function that used it. Except we already had a type definition in the types file so that it could be imported into different parts of the code.
Ouch. In C++, this violates the “One Definition Rule”, which will in this case likely not cause any compiler warning, and can cause extremely hard-to-find Undefined Behaviour bugs if, for example, the layout for classes or structs is different between definitions.
(And the latter can of course easily happen if you later edit or extend one definition without being aware of redundant other definitions.)
How would Solus compare to Void Linux?
One of the most interesting characteristics Void Linux has is “stable rolling release”. The only large distribution which does this is IIRC SuSE Tumbleweed/ Slowroll.
From the article:
At some point, I had so many AI agents working, that the focus change was too much for me. There were tasks I could have done in 20 minutes easily, that took 5 minutes of an AI agent, and then 2 days for me to review. Because there were so many other things. And maybe AI and computers are good at context switching, but not me. I was exhausted. Because if it was just about approving PRs that are perfectly written, it would be good. But for each PR I had to look at the code, the tests, the style, give feedback, switch to something else, go back again, push, see if I have any PR comments, if CI passed, wait, now the linter complains. And it takes you 2 days to deliver something that could have been literally 1 hour single-focused. In my personal experience, multiplied AI performance is just an illusion. Multiplied frustration and exhaustion is guaranteed, though.
Also very interesting: The debate of the article on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49855018
When somebody does find LLMs not good enough, there will inevitably surface claims that the versions they are using are apparently too old - that “one year ago, models were not good enough, but now they are much better”.
Just for comprehension… Who exactly should be liable?
Companies which build “ai” models (LLMs)?
Companies which use them?
Software developers?
Evil black hats with bad intentions?
I think the gradual development which the blog describes might explain the contradictory views which people do have on “ai”.
Yes, in theory you could carefully review each change and each commit. Write API docs and tests by hand.
But this is apparently not what happens usually. What happens is a downward movement on a slippery slope.
How much discipline does it require not to move downwards?
Which also explains why it commonly feels faster. Surely in terms of “lines of code”. Probably also more convenient. But actually, it does not seem to be faster (in terms of productivity).
What happens if important missing parts of specs and requirements are just filled up with untested yet plausible assumptions? Working code that does the wrong thing?
And there is also the question what happens with the responsability of programmers using “ai”. Does responsibility just … evaporate?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52426446
US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson said on Friday he would resist describing AI agents as autonomous actors that “break loose” with “wills and desires of their own,” suggesting the developers who instruct agents would be the ones liable for harm.
“I’m going to continue as long as I am chairman to resist this anthropomorphizing of these tools,” Ferguson said at the Reuters Momentum AI Austin event. “If someone tells a tool to do something, and the tool does it, I don’t think we would say, ‘Oh, what do we do about the tool?’”
Ferguson’s remarks illustrated potential avenues for the Trump administration to take as incidents rise in which agentic AI testing resulted in unauthorized access to corporate or government data.
I recovered the joy of programming. And I didn’t look back. I won’t pretend that number of lines of code or PRs is a valid metric, especially when AI can be as verbose as it wants to win on every metric. But I can say that I am pushing significant changes every day, getting PRs merged, and at the end of the day, getting the work done. And for that reason, I’m not scared of being fired. Plus, I’m keeping my brain functions intact.
Welcome to my third post on Gemini and the alternative Internets and smallnets! This is going to be my most helpful and detailed article on the topic yet—and it’s something I’m excited to get into.
[ …]
This, however, is going to be only about Gemini (and a little of Gopher and Spartan, too). Because I realized that I only really explored the surface-level of what this protocol has to offer. While there are interesting things to read (which I’ll be linking to), this guide is aimed more at creation, socialization, and interactivity that’s possible on Gemini.
But if you want a tl;dr, Gemini is a modern, minimal Internet protocol alternative to https://, and requires a different Internet browser to use it. It was built in 2019 by a pseudonymous developer who goes by Solderpunk, and instead of HTML, every page is written in Gemtext, which is a stripped-down format with only headings, links, and lists.
I found keyboard switching to be too much friction.
I am programming in English and writing in English and German. What I use now is the UK international layout with dead keys. Plus compose key bindings for less frequently used symbols like € or °. This allows me to keep the same layout everywhere, which makes my life easier - and typing faster.