Senal

Read it? probably some, understood it? not if previous responses are to be believed.

and nothing of value was lost.

TL;DR;

START READ HERE

Seems the previous TL;DR; was too long ill try to be more concise.

Two people disagreeing with you (for different reasons no less) doesn't mean they are associated, get a grip on that ego.

Grammar and logic aren't the same thing.

You've argued many positions from your imagination and not a single position that was actually taken.

There is no conversation (of this type) to be had with someone who can't separate imagination from actual text.

Good luck with life.

END READ HERE

BIG SENTENCES PAST HERE

I know long sentences aren't your thing, you can stop here, this is only so i have it written down.

Yeah I assumed you were associated with the other user in this thread — the essay and your snide comments about my word use more or less confirms this.

Two people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they know each other, I'm not sure how to even work with the level of ego it'd take to assume two dissenting opinions must be collusion, let alone the level of confusion needed to think that two entirely different opinions are somehow the same opinion because they both happen to disagree with yours.

That's going to be some lucrative therapy work for someone eventually.

By the way, don’t comment on how another person writes and then proceed to fail at capitilizing I. You can keep your essay.

Perhaps i explained it poorly, i was criticizing your word choice because that choice of words made your statements logically incorrect.

Me not capitalising an i doesn't change the logical content.

Word Choice (Logical):

The sky is always blue.

The sky is currently blue.

Capitalisation (grammatical?)

I think the sky is blue

i think the sky is blue

If you genuinely can't see the difference there I'm not sure I'm qualified to help you.

You can keep your essay.

That is my bad, i used too many words and it seems that's a problem.

Though i did put a TL;DR, three sentences should be fine, right ?

By the way, my point to you is the same as the other user — go out and fall on your sword or continue bloviating on an online forum

Your point was invalid the first time you made it, you've done nothing to back it up or expand upon it since then, so it remains invalid.

I'm not sure what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to be arguing that "violence begets more violence (and is therefore bad)" and then suggest sword based suicide, seems like it'd be quite extensive though.

all I know is it smells like a couple of cowards to me.

You talk a big game for someone who hasn't actually engaged on a point they haven't imagined themselves, but you do you.

( for given values of imaginary and real, this is still only an online forum after all )

There is probably a name for someone who fights imaginary battles to avoid real ones.

hmm, actually ...i wonder if there was someone else we could point to as an example of someone who didn't engage on the talking points and went off on their own imaginary journey so they could claim victory ?

edit: reading prompts, ponderings

TL;DR;

You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.

I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.

If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.

So I'm going to break this in to two sections.

The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn't really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.

The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it

FIRST SECTION

Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here's a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.

A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.

I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.

Speaking of the options:

You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.

You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).

Neither of these make sense.

Nobody was arguing that all US citizens had to fall on their sword.

Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.

For this to be true you'd have to argue that no-one outside of the US is affected by anything happening inside the US.

I think we can both agree that you can't possibly justify that claim.

SECOND SECTION

To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.

Ok, so firstly that's a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.

Secondly the killings weren't exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.

Regardless of any of that, unless you're about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn't satisfy the word indiscriminate.

Just because it doesn't fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination.

If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably.

If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that's your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn't true.

Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that's some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.

Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.

i wasn't arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don't have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.

Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.

I wasn't implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you've said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won't hold my breath.

A false dichotomy? In this economy?

Also neither of them make sense.

Actually is it a false dichotomy when neither option exists, is there a word for that? A false fauxchotomy?

Also also, I don't think indiscriminate is the word you are looking for, as a clear criteria was set here and unless Robespierre truly killed with no criteria they would both fit the bill for discrimination ( even if you don't agree with their reasoning )

Edit : wait, no it'd need to just be fauxchotomy or that's a double negative

That's a demand.

Him actually going to prison would be a consequence if it ever happened.

Also two things can be true at once, wanting consequences and those consequences accelerating something can both be true.

Speaking from a purely technical viewpoint I'm not sure how you get acceleration from this assassination. What would accelerate exactly?

The China vs US one ?

Brigades are out in full force in those trenches

Greater compared to human code? Not sure about that, but I'm not disagreeing either. Greater compared to verified able programmers, sure, but in general?..

Both.

The reasons are quite hard to describe, which is why it's such a trap, but if you spend some time reviewing LLM code you'll see what I mean.

One reason is that it isn't coding for logical correctness it's coding for linguistic passability.

Internally there are mechanisms for mitigating this somewhat, but its not an actual fix so problems slip through.

I don't think I'm getting your point here. Do you mean by that, the code basically lacks focus on an end goal? Or are you talking about the fuzzyness and randomization of the output?

The latter, if you give it the exact same input in the exact same conditions, it's not guaranteed to give you the same output.

The fact that its sometimes close to the same actually makes it worse because then you can't tell at a glance what has changed.

It also isn't a simple as using a diff tool, at least for anything non-trivial, because it's variations can be in logical progression as well as language.

Meaning you need to track these differences across the whole contextual area which, if you are doing end to end generation, is the whole codebase.

As I said, there are mitigations, but they aren't fixes.

Let's assume we're skipping the ethical and moral concerns about LLM usage and just discuss the technical.

it makes an impression on me as if human code would be free of such errors

Nobody who knows anything about coding is claiming human code is error free, that's why code reviews, testing and all the other aspects of the software development lifecycle exist.

To me it sounds like nobody should ever trust AI code

Nobody should trust any code unless it can be verified that it does what is required consistently and predictably.

because there can or will be mistakes you can’t see, which is reasonably careful at best and paranoid at worst

This is a known thing, paranoia doesn't really apply here, only subjectively appropriate levels of caution.

Also it's not that they can't be seen, it's just that the effort required to spot them is greater and the likelihood to miss something is higher.

Whether or not these problems can be overcome (or mitigated) remains to be seen, but at the moment it still requires additional effort around the LLM parts, which is why hiding them is counterproductive.

At some point there is no difference anymore between “it looks fine” and “it is fine”.

This is important because it's true, but it's only true if you can verify it.

This whole issue should theoretically be negated by comprehensive acceptance criteria and testing but if that were the case we'd never have any bugs in human code either.

Personally i think the "uncanny valley code" issue is an inherent part of the way LLM's work and there is no "solution" to it, the only option is to mitigate as best we can.

I also really really dislike the non-declarative nature of generated code, which fundamentally rules it out as a reliable end to end system tool unless we can get those fully comprehensive tests up to scratch, for me at least.

Think of it like a jeweller suddenly announcing they were going to start mixing in blood diamonds with their usual diamonds "good luck finding them".

Functionally, blood diamonds aren't different.

Leaving aside that you might not want blood diamonds, are you really going to trust someone who essentially says "Fuck you, i'm going to hide them because you're complaining"

If you don't know what blood diamonds are, it's easily searchable.

I'll go on record as saying the aesthetic diamond industry is inflationist monopolist bullshit, but that doesn’t alter the analogy

Secondly, it seems you don't really understand why LLM generated code can be problematic, i'm not going to go in to it fully here but here's a relevant outline.

LLM generated code can (and usually does) look fine, but still not do what it's supposed to do.

This becomes more of an issue the larger the codebase.

The amount of effort needed to find this reasonable looking, but flawed, code is significantly higher than just reading a new dev's version.

Hiding where this code is makes it even harder to find.

Hiding the parts where you really should want additional scrutiny is stupid and self-defeating.

What you're describing is skill atrophy, it's just in skills you don't value.

It's also skill acquisition/reinforcement for skill you do value.

If you saw harassment in that first exchange then whatever you mean by "you people" is a group I’m fine with being in.

That's some thin skin.

So any disagreement should be met with immediate forking?

No raising of grievances, just silence and then forking?

Or is it only silence and forking for open source?

As soon as anyone is paid then comments are allowed ?

Kind feels like a reductive half-answer, but you do you.

The only owl that is not superb

Iirc the situation is similar in the UK, for hunting and "pest control"

Technically there should be some legal recourse, perhaps jail, whether or not that comes to pass is subject to the same shenanigans law enforcement usually comes with.

But that isn't what they were saying, they were saying that in japan almost no-one is allowed guns so the likelihood that a person was defending their house with a legal gun is very low.

I agree it wasn't totally clear.

By the sound of it, the disagreement is mostly in how direct an impact AB1043 will have on government plans for data collection and authoritarianism.

That's not really the original disagreement i was referencing, nor is it a position i've taken, we agree that the local only bill isn't the big bad.

You twice referenced the slippery slope fallacy when replying to comments clearly describing future actions, i was pointing out that it doesn't meet that criteria because there is a reasonable assumption that the described escalation will occur.

Your original responses to which i was referring:

This is a slippery slope falicy. Just because the option is provided to self-identify age, doesn’t mean that it will be replaced with more complex and direct data collection (which I am against, if it wasn’t clear) later

You’re again relying on slipery slope falacy to say that because I’m okay with this one specific form of age gating, I’m okay with every other one, which I have repeatedly made clear is not true.

The first one is the main issue i was pointing out, the second one isn't how the fallacy is applied at all.

As no one is taking the position that AB1043 is the actual danger most of what you are arguing doesn't really apply.

Similarly with the Overton window, where it has been standard practice for over a decade to have a “are you at least 18?” popup, and for every single service to ask you your age, if not more. We absolutely need more data protections for systems such as this (ideally an outright ban on saving this information) but this doesn’t seem to make it worse.

Emphasis mine.

Hard disagree, moving the responsibility of this from individual websites to the OS is a big jump in scope.

The same kind of jump as making it the ISP's responsibility if they serve illegal content from individual websites ( as has been suggested ).

Aside from that it centralises the surface area for future changes and enforcement.

Basically, from my understanding, this isn’t a step towards data collection or authoritarianism, and provides no significant benifit to either of those causes - its effectively a technical standard.

This is the disagreement, i (and obviously many others) are pointing at the long and comprehensive list of similar initiatives, both recent and historic, that were stepping stones to further encroachment and saying "oh look another small step in the continued and provable encroachment upon privacy" and you seem to be advocating for the benefit of the doubt.

Like, if this age-verification flag was proposed by the Linux Foundation, and agreed to by others, would the backlash be this big?

If the linux foundation had the same history of shenanigans, then yes.

Similarly, I don’t see any contradition between wanting a ban on storage/sharing of user data, and the implementation of a flag like this - even if we are able to ban all storage of user data, this law would be unaffected. That’s what I’m trying to figure out - how do people think that this leads towards those end goals? How would blocking it improve anything?

Ignore the technical implementation of this one step, nobody is saying this is the endgame big bad.

Think of it as a prevention measure, a single ant in the kitchen isn't a problem in and of itself, but it's almost certainly an indication of a larger potential future problem.

You are arguing it's not a problem because the ant only has 5 legs, everyone else is saying the leg count doesn't matter it's still an ant.

Is it just a difference in opinion about the signicance of the Overton window?

See above

Is there a technical aspect I’m missing?

Not necessarily , it's just that you are arguing a single technical issue in a conversation about perceived intentionality.

Is there some legal advantage this provides to survailance that I’ve missed?

See above

Right now, it seems like everyone is arguing against a strawman, implying that I support the idea of government/corporate surveillance and censorship, that I don’t expect that they’ll continue to be evil, or they’re simply saying its bad because its cosmetically similar to laws that do impede on freedoms. Given how unanimous the backlash is, I must be missing something?

That you are using a point nobody disagrees with to imply correctness in a context where said point doesn't really apply makes it seem like you are coming at this in bad faith.

When bad faith is assumed, people look for underlying reasons.

Or the avocado is bland? not all avocado are built equally.

I would hedge that the penis consists of more than just regular skin there is a fair amount of erectile tissue in there as well, though i can't vouch for a scientific difference is the taste experience.

In the case of ducks, that's quack on quack crime

Senal

@ Senal @programming.dev

Posts

2
Comments

756
Joined

3 yr. ago

Senal

‘Saturday Night Live’ Sets Jack Black as Next Host, With Jack White as Musical Guest

‘Saturday Night Live’ Sets Jack Black as Next Host, With Jack White as Musical Guest

START READ HERE

END READ HERE

BIG SENTENCES PAST HERE

Word Choice (Logical):

Capitalisation (grammatical?)

‘Saturday Night Live’ Sets Jack Black as Next Host, With Jack White as Musical Guest

‘Saturday Night Live’ Sets Jack Black as Next Host, With Jack White as Musical Guest

‘Saturday Night Live’ Sets Jack Black as Next Host, With Jack White as Musical Guest

Permanently Deleted

China bad tho, right lemmy liberals?

Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash

Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash

Lutris now being built with Claude AI, developer decides to hide it after backlash

METR AI Coding Research Inconclusive Because Dev Participants Refused to Complete Tasks Without AI

Lutris maintainer: "I've removed the Claude co-authorship from the commits a few days ago. So good luck figuring out what's generated and what is not."

Lutris maintainer: "I've removed the Claude co-authorship from the commits a few days ago. So good luck figuring out what's generated and what is not."

Oh god just let me finish it for you, fuck

Oh god just let me finish it for you, fuck

Dragon Quest creator Yuji Horii says English translations inevitably strip away a lot of a game's "flavor"

Dragon Quest creator Yuji Horii says English translations inevitably strip away a lot of a game's "flavor"

System76 on Age Verification Laws

Avocado. Is it really so untasty or I am doing something wrong?

Bird Law