Hahaha my writing style is runon and compound complex sentences without commas.

Why wouldn't you take writing tips from GRRM?

Cause the man clearly can't finish his fucking book

Those papers, and the most recent ones, all point to use of LLM's as causing cognitive decline due to offloading problem solving.

Saying "they don't even take into account this way more capable model that makes me able to solve problems way faster" is like saying research into cancer causing materials is bunk because they don't take into account all the times I inject concentrated carcinogens directly into my testicles.

No one is saying using LLM's slow you down. They're saying that being slow was a feature not a bug and skipping it prevents long term learning. Is there a way to use LLM's that improve learning? Maybe. My worry is that even if there is there is little real inventive to do so.

You're free to hate GenAI all you like as far as I'm concerned. Just be honest about your reasons, and don't pretend it's about the environment if you don't care enough to even look at the numbers.

Because then I'd never finish my masterpiece. /hj But more seriously, a lot of his stylistic choices are ones I try to not replicate in my own writing. The extremely detailed descriptions of food, clothing, woman's bodies, etc. I love the story he tells but find the writing itself can be a chore to read sometimes, if that makes sense.

It works great as a fancy search engine. Google results have been atrocious for quite some time, and DDG isn't that much better. When you're looking for something hard to find, you may have to check dozens of results or try several searches. LLMs can do this and process the results much faster than you can, and can even give you the sources. Which you do need to check, because sometimes they still spout garbage.

Most other uses are crap unless it's used by an expert in the subject matter. But search can be useful for anyone. Note: this is not the AI results at the top of the search results; those are still crap. I'm talking about telling the LLM to do a thorough search with a lot more relevant context than the search usually has.

Slop coders see Kernighan's Law and think "I can do so much worse"

Did they make you take Pascal in school, or did you choose it and then not like it?

That's pretty cool if it was required (or some form of programming), it is something I think everyone should at least try and be shown how it works.

This would be true if we were reading a paper on formal logic and all people communicated exclusively through lean.

Why would he chose to include that section in this correspondence? Just as a non-sequiturs? Your analysis implies he had absolutely no rhetorical goal in including that section. Humans tend to have rhetorical goals when they write or speak so we must ask "what was Linus' goal" in that section.

Given the context, the fact that the email thread is in regards to letting LLM's make commit messages, and Linus being famously willing to insult the intelligence of others it would be foolish not to assume that "insult their intellect" was not a rhetorical goal.

I think the real problem is that sometimes things like this come around that are disruptive to the workforce, faster than the workforce can handle the influx of new unemployment.

It will in theory sort itself out, but at the moment, were in a transition period.

That doesn't mean its bad, but it can mean that our governments aren't responding in ways that support the worker in the transition which is their fault, not the technologies fault.

Edit: essentially disruption will always keep happening, its how its handled thats the important part.

The work Linus is referring to is authoring commit messages in the Linux kernel.

He's arguing for letting the AI write the commit message. Honest question for you; if a person does not have the ability to articulate something like a change to the kernel, how do we know they understand the change?

Why?

Amish is also wrong. The Amish aren't against technology which is why you'll see Amish communities using things like credit card readers, industrial motors, and even computers.

The Ordnung, an Amish community's governing body, will review proposals for technological adoption every 6 months and hear arguments for and against adoption. The decision to adopt is screened against potential harm to the community based on a number of factors.

Honestly, the model the Amish use would be an excellent way to achieve a pro-social form of what the Luddites wanted to achieve.

My calculator can do math for me, but I need to know how to use the calculator, the operations, rules in math, and basically, well, know math. My calculator is a good tool.

"IA" can "craft" a magic result without you needing to known anything about what the tool is helping you to accomplish. In a perfect world IA can be used to automate the most tedious part of any job (scaffolding, auto generated code for APIs, color grading, laso tool, etc) but in this world people use it as an excuse to not learn what they are trying to do. "IA" is a bad tool. Is not helping you, is doing it for you.

Never in human kind has existed a "tool" that does things for you without the need of any input or knowledge of the tool itself. "Engineer" comes from "who operates the machine", "IA" operates itself. I don't think there exist a real comparison with that "IA" does, but it's effects are clear, and are not good.

I don't write but I get what you mean by detail. Some books just go too verbose on the mundane.

I'm kind of gobsmacked by this. I've heard younger developers compare LLM with compiler and chalked it up to ignorance, but I don't get what this is.

Can I write code in assembly? Yes. Of course. It's true that I never do it, but if there was a rule that you needed to write some assembly now and then to certify as a kernel developer I don't see how it would be any kind of impediment.

Comparing more directly: if you hand me a compiled binary and the source code and ask "why is the bit at address 0xXXXXXXXXX a 0?" I can, with 100% certainty, answer that. Probably in less than a day of effort. If I ask "why did the LLM output "for" as the XXXXth word of its utterance, can Linus say why?

And "can you write a good commit message without an editor?" Uhhh? At least when I was in school, this was something people did for fun/messing around. I still do cat > somefile when I need to put some quick text together. In fact, Claude will sometimes write a Git commit by cat-ing into a file--which it's doing because there's so many online examples of this. Fucking weird things for Linus to pick. Makes me think his brain's rotted.

You can predict with certainty what a compilers output would be. Linus is conflating the fact that most people don't understand how a compiler converts higher level programming language into machine code with the reality that no one can actually predict and audit what an LLM puts out.

Sure, but surely the data centers illegally running gas turbines in Memphis and Vineland, New Jersey are causing problems that wouldn't exist without the current hype cycle.

It's not great at coding. I'm on about my fifth "rewrite large system that's a pile of AI slop" job this year, trust me.

People said this a year ago and I tested it then and it wasn’t great. I’ll believe it’s better but it’s hard to believe it’s “fixed”. I’m sure I’ll get a chance to try it again sometime. No way I’m paying for it myself lol.

You don’t need to check that the machine code your compiler made matched the code you wrote. You don’t need to check that the commit message an editor sent matched what you typed.

You absolutely do need to check and correct everything that comes out of AI because it’s at best like 80% correct, and that’s if the subject matter is easy.

This is correct. And yes, we expect everyone that contributes to have this understanding. If you don't have it, welcome to ask. Misunderstandings that happen despite your effort will be caught by the steward.

There's nothing Marxist in that article. Only fallacies from rich white man ranting about people pushing back against fascism.

People say AI to mean LLM first because main stream western, fascist, media pushed the term by inviting exclusively non-expert and CEOs to talk about the subject. People are pushing back against a product that is mean to make workers dull and replace them by stealing their works even by capitalist standards -> exploiting their works, appropriating it to themselves without any compensation nor permission.

The article tried to paint the discussion as anti-llm would be anti technology, which is not Marxist in any way and not relevant. Weirdly enough fascist guy like the one on this article don't talk about cryptocurrency as something we should chill for. Isn't it a tool too?

Current LLM chill is the opposite of dialectical materialism: what is the concrete analysis here? LLM outputed nothing of value for years despite the hundred of billions invested. Worst it actually participate to global warming, bourgeoisie attempt to mass control, getting rid of workers and inflating computer costs. So the real consequences for people are losses only.

And for what? To get to have unskilled rich white people who can afford the awfully hight price of LLM to boats about "I made this" while it is actually made from steal and empoverish people and enriching tech lord's.

So no, thanks, and trying to paint fallacies to Marxism isn't going to help either.

EDIT: replace the "stealing" argument as pointed out -> https://lemmy.ml/post/54102413/28384201 , this can be confusing with the anti-piracy propaganda vocabulary.

Bad news, @yogthos@lemmy.ml, you’re not a Marxist, and your analysis is the opposite of dialectical materialism.

Predicting what a compiler outputs is quiet hard, especially if you enable optimization flags or get near any undefined behavior. But I think you're right to say that a compiler is more predictable than any LLM.
I don't get the point why you should be unable to audit the output of an LLM? If its used as a tool like described the user should have the knowlage to audit any output

was that supposed to be an argument against my explanation?

Yeah, I don't think Linus should be policing his speech at this level or for this cause. Educate the workers please, Linus is doing plenty.

Or with moderately competent community involvement and regulation. Fortunately we're waking those up... kinda...

Obviously it wasn’t, or I would have made an argument.

I was just pointing out Linus was conflating the two to make his point. I don't agree with this, but everything else he said was fine.

100%, or we'd commit prompts instead of code lol

I was gonna say nice strawman and then I saw the instance and yea this dumb statement checks out 🙄

Flying is almost surely more destructive, and pretty common part of how we work these days.

I don't believe they'll finish. If you do believe they'll finish and succeed in ripping communities off as planned, then I think you're also predicting that this stuff really works and soon.

Yes please do not make any argument and post memes with some interesting comments

When the topic is AI, the quality of some of these Lemmy threads drops down to the level of YouTube c
omments.

Really helps.

There was another article posted on Lemmy somewhere where recently other kernel developers had to clean up after Torvalds as of recent.

So yeah. I'd say his brain has rotted.

I'll never recover from this. 🤣

all the undefined behaviors would like to disagree with you there champ

I would love to read about enclosure, can you give me a phrase I can actually search for?

They still.kind of suck gibe you an answer and you say but blah. And itnfoes oh yes in version x.x they changed. I mean if unwanted old outdated in found use Google. Since looking for technical studfnis hard cause so much is out of date.

Can you elaborate?

He is saying that you have to understand your contribution, so whatever the LLM spits out, you need to thoroughly review and double-check that it makes sense. So, in particular, he's not trying to rate these tools, he's merely saying make sure the contribution is objectively good, then he doesn't care how you got there.

I think she is refering to the enclosure movement, a proto-capitalist strategy to privatize public land. Karl Marx talks about it a lot as a way for capitalism to take root in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

They are suggesting that ai is a way for private interests to control foss.

Yeah? Your lust for winning an argument has you siding with the Amish. If they do things right abide by their rules and log off.

Shitty devs will write shitty code using AI

Good devs will write good code faster with AI

I have for sure seen far worse hand written code than AI would produce

I'll probably get flamed om Lemmy for saying this, but the water usage of AI is negligible and far dumber things use far more water but get zero mention.

People want to be upset at AI so they are looking for reasons

She and yes I am.

The enclosure of the Commons largely carried out under absolutist monarchs.

LLMs are a naked attempt to enclose the vast intellectual and cultural commons online, not just FOSS. Clammy Sammy nakedly talks about a future "where you buy intelligence from us on a meter", sites where people taught each other have been mined for knowledge and then destroyed, cultures of sharing destroyed, private blogs closed under a tide of bot hammering.

Where must you go for all this now? They are literally buying and destroying books. It's madness.

Learning has just shifted, you no longer have to think of syntax and lower level things, but more the architecture of the code.

Many devs stop writing code and just become architects later in their career, their brains don't just wrot then because they "stop thinking"

I actually code way way more now than before AI, because it takes care of the shit I hate doing, and I can focus on the fun stuff

I got that part and I agree with it.

My issue is him saying don't use a compiler if you don't really understand the machine language it creates. This conflates LLM with a compiler as a tool when they are inherently different. This is disingenuous because it is possible to understand and audit what a compiler creates. You cannot audit what an LLM creates in even close to the same way.