Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.

90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it

source?

Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?

Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.

I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.

Nice attempt at spin but relies too much on readers having room temperature IQ to believe that’s what my argument is. And just to be clear, by ‘Nice attempt’ I’m being sarcastic.

On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.

All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.

Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?

The honest ones that would disclose it to say “this needs more eyes, guys” can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it’s a rule or not.

The only difference here is there’s no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.

This sounds overly optimistic bordering on delusional. There are countless examples of courts siding with authorities based on nothing but their say so and this case is a perfect candidate to ‘make an example’ out of someone uncooperative with said authorities. It’s easy to discount the stress of having a potential 5 year term hanging over you when you’re not on the receiving end of it.

Unless you’re deliberately looking to fight the fight (unlike the majority of people who find themselves in this situation), the plausible deniability provided by a more discrete wipe would keep both your data and you personally safe.

When you enter the wipe passcode, iirc the screen flashes and the phone reboots / wipes - that’s how they were clued in that he ‘did something’ and that’s why he’s being charged and faces 5y in prison for the act.

A hidden wipe would have prevented this.

Called bullshit as soon as I read they were accusing him of kiddie stuff.

This is why GrapheneOS’s passcode feature is more likely to land you in trouble - it’s too “hostile”

I’d rather it load an empty profile while it wipes everything in the background.

I’ve recently been pondering the future impact of AI on coding, while trying to filter out the current noise surrounding the issue (since all it does is muddy the waters). There’s a lot of amateurish supposition to follow, but since you appear to be getting fewer thought out responses than “AI-bad-kill”, take it with a pinch of salt.

There was a recent article on the open source software that props up the internet - (paraphrasing here) one of these repositories had (pre-AI) a user called Jin Yue or Jin Yin who made hundreds of useful pull requests, gained the trust of the repo maintainer and was eventually given admin privileges, only to surrepticiously merge malicious code when no one was looking (eventually discovered ~a month after the fact). I imagine that (likely) state-sponsored attempts like these will make more use of AI in the future for quicker turnaround, and that maintainers will also eventually use AI to quickly audit submitted code for security flaws.

As far as open source software channels are concerned, I imagine there will be a decent amount of low effort malicious software that makes heavy use of AI, submitted to these channels. In such an environment, whether or not users are permitted to candidly disclose AI usage without reprisal will likely make a huge difference, since honest disclosure would invite security-minded people to audit fault-prone AI-assisted code - something that malware distributers will try to avoid at all costs (thereby allowing a distinction that can be leveraged to form between the two).

Just my two cents.

Even considering rhetorical goals and context, without “I particularly dislike this guy”, it’s an enormous leap to twist those words that way.

Stop blaming the pandas.

Thanks for your contribution to the pile.

Then you’ve missed the point of the change entirely. Splitting email addresses into public and private-facing addresses is one thing. Reusing passwords is entirely another evin if both are related to securtity.

asking if he used AI on the project is a valid question

Maybe in some scenarios, but reducing years of his work to “how vibey is your code?” with no inquiry whatsoever on the finer technical aspects of his work is telling. They don’t care. They’re more interested in “Are you on my side of the AI wars?”, forcing the issue, because that’s the only ‘contribution’ they can make to the discussion.

One example.

Got something that has more than 18 participants split into 3 groups for a total sample size of 6 people per control group? Not to mention its focus on AI assisted essay writing, measuring cognitive debt (not decline), using EEG to infer performance of higher cognitive function, etc.

Vague criticisms, fallacious reasoning, highly emotive language, little response to attempts at discussion (though some might engage in disingenuous discussions of shifting goalposts here and there to discourage particularly vocal engagees from future participation). So I’d say that Linus is just the latest convenient scapegoat in an Anti-AI ‘trend’ that will have little impact on the rate of AI adoption in the long run.

Sucks that I waited until now to try to form a measured opinion on AI because now all the discussions on the internet are hot garbage.

As someone who did study computer science and has worked in embedded processor space

Using an argument from authority to denounce someone in authority and their arguments? Cool. Might’ve worked if I hadn’t seen you mention recently that we shouldn’t use AI ‘because Trump and his cronies do’.

AI use demonstrably leads to cognitive decline

source?

Man I’ve seen others try to twist those words the same way even though it’s on the same level as one of those elementary reasoning problems you’d find on a basic IQ test (Jack caught an std after interacting with koalas - a) all koalas transmit stds, b) some koalas transmit stds, c) pandas are free from stds, d) Jack should spend more than $5 on his hookers).

So unless you actually are stupid and this is why you’re choosing to (defensively) misinterpret his words by picking the equivalent of c) here, it’s clearly wilful misrepresentation of a very reasonable statement - “Of the people I admire, most don’t shy away from cutting edge sutff”

It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.

Could you elaborate on this a little? I came here as I’m not very knowledgable when it comes to AI and am genuinely curious. Sadly you’re the only person I’ve seen so far that has made coherent (even if broad) arguments against AI.

I know the environment argument is probably the enormous power demand of AI, and as far as the copyright thing goes, I’ve seen first hand how people abuse voice actors’ livelihoods with shitty imitations of their voices that are also completely devoid of anything resembling skill. But how does AI harm developers, lock you in to a specific vendor or make you dependant on giant tech companies?