Why are you on fedi if you love the corpo slop machine so much? This platform was specifically made to get away from people like you. Go back to linkedin.
It’s a resolution they’ve arrived after considering the benefits and downsides of that tool. Nukes can be used for efficient large-scale excavation, but people were sane enough to realize why nuking themselves was a horrible idea.
Considering only the benefits and not the risks and drawbacks of anything is not just reckless. It’s zealotry.
Authors and maintainers of many open source tools that you use every day - whether that’s curl or linux with its army of developers - openly discuss the value LLMs bring. You either don’t care to listen or you choose to ignore their words because they contradict your beliefs.
Funnily enough, many people in the industry with years of experience and a strong reputation have a fairly balanced view of AI, recognizing both its advantages and disadvantages. Only on social media do you find people who blatantly deny any positive contributions (or folks who believe that AI is irreproachable, but you won’t find them on fedi).
To be fair, this is what bothers me more than the supposedly non-existent benefits, because I’ve seen LLMs being useful as tools, but the impact on environment is not clearly communicated (I’d wager it’s because no one wants to admit that it’s enormous). For that reason I’m trying to use local LLM instead, and it is more limited in usefulness but that’s fine by me as it’s not the only tool I have
iirc their goal is not to have a perfectly enforceable policy, it’s to cultivate a culture around the language that is fully in favor of human contributors instead of ai. to let people learn and improve as they contribute, instead of simply merging code that looks good enough; they call it contributor poker
Like all of this ranges from unenforceable to spuriously enforceable (eg for rule 1, you can guess whether something has AI vibes—with vibe code it might be easier if the AI has just hallucinated a function or something). Seems more for the purpose of making a point than anything, or perhaps relying on others respecting your policy, but other projects with much more lenient no-AI policies still have people flagrantly breaking them.
Can’t wait for the punchline.
No punchline, just found such hardline requirements potentially entertaining.
What’s wrong with it? Honestly it’s kinda refreshing.
That’s a complete disregard of a useful tool that brings measurable benefits.
Why are you on fedi if you love the corpo slop machine so much? This platform was specifically made to get away from people like you. Go back to linkedin.
Don’t you think too much of yourself and your role here? Lmao. What a buffoon 😂
Name 1 great struggle that humanity suffers from that “Ai” has resolved.
A nice low bar, set fairly and in good faith.
It’s a resolution they’ve arrived after considering the benefits and downsides of that tool. Nukes can be used for efficient large-scale excavation, but people were sane enough to realize why nuking themselves was a horrible idea.
Considering only the benefits and not the risks and drawbacks of anything is not just reckless. It’s zealotry.
Nobody proposed to ignore risks, but okay, you wanted to win this argument - so you had to invent it.
where are these measurable benefits? so far they haven’t really realized anywhere
Authors and maintainers of many open source tools that you use every day - whether that’s curl or linux with its army of developers - openly discuss the value LLMs bring. You either don’t care to listen or you choose to ignore their words because they contradict your beliefs.
Funnily enough, many people in the industry with years of experience and a strong reputation have a fairly balanced view of AI, recognizing both its advantages and disadvantages. Only on social media do you find people who blatantly deny any positive contributions (or folks who believe that AI is irreproachable, but you won’t find them on fedi).
There’s also huge downsides that everyone always seems to forget (enormous power/clean water usage, noise pollution, etc.)
To be fair, this is what bothers me more than the supposedly non-existent benefits, because I’ve seen LLMs being useful as tools, but the impact on environment is not clearly communicated (I’d wager it’s because no one wants to admit that it’s enormous). For that reason I’m trying to use local LLM instead, and it is more limited in usefulness but that’s fine by me as it’s not the only tool I have
Shhh, you’re not supposed to notice that on Lemmy.
Nah, be it AI psychosis or anti-AI psychosis - neither should dictate us what to say.
Clearly they don’t find it useful.
Up to them. I only answered the question.
Yeah how do they want to enforce this if people use it for brainstorming?
iirc their goal is not to have a perfectly enforceable policy, it’s to cultivate a culture around the language that is fully in favor of human contributors instead of ai. to let people learn and improve as they contribute, instead of simply merging code that looks good enough; they call it contributor poker
It might not be enforceable, but why would they want to contribute to something that’s very against what they use? Out of spite?
Same reason as before this policy: they care about the project itself.
If you don’t view these tools as the devil, of course you might roll your eyes and say, that’s nice, anyway, here’s an improvement.
Like all of this ranges from unenforceable to spuriously enforceable (eg for rule 1, you can guess whether something has AI vibes—with vibe code it might be easier if the AI has just hallucinated a function or something). Seems more for the purpose of making a point than anything, or perhaps relying on others respecting your policy, but other projects with much more lenient no-AI policies still have people flagrantly breaking them.