My bet is on exactly that being the plan. Stocks go down, tech companies pay to bribe him, next Tuesday a reversal of tariff plans, stocks go up, rich people make more money. Rinse, repeat

Well, like you said that’s basically the corporations fault. They push “AI” everywhere and AI in the media is 100% LLMs and other GenAI. I wouldn’t blame the public for not knowing the difference. Those data centers aren’t built to cure cancer, but to cause it. Figuratively and literally.

LLMs don’t cure cancer. That’s the kind of AI everyone refers to these days. Not ML projects.

Some German bakeries have excessively stupid names for their products too, though. I always refuse to say the name but point to the product in question. The usual answer is “Oh, you want one of the [silly-gibberish-name-of-an-overpriced-thing-that-tastes-like-sawdust-anyways]” - I nod, and that’s a successful transaction done.

Would be an OK salary for most of Europe. Most countries here have relatively solid health care insurance, affordable education and a pension fund included, so that some of the biggest costs of living in the US don’t even make a dent in the salary.

YouTube paid by the time people actually watched the videos in the past (as far as I know this changed recently) so there was a real incentive for Youtubers to add a lot of worthless filler to the videos

Quite ironic considering how hard Microslop is pushing AI. Now the self inflicted ram shortage kills their bloated bullshit features.

yw, also subscribing to the people providing good content should help too. Most of my feed is from subscriptions, with related content inbetween

I’m not encouraging you to use YouTube, but if you do, marking stuff you aren’t interested in and removing every slop video from your watch history can help a lot. The YouTube algorithm very rarely recommends slop to me

Possible, but they would more likely see more false positives depending on how suspicious they are… like when people suspected images to be photoshopped in the past.

I have no clue about the looksmaxxing scene, so forgive me for asking: Which one is supposed to be before and which one is after?

Edit: Goddamit, it’s a simple question and I honestly don’t see it. Just answer me instead of downvoting if you know better than me. The left one looks more masculine somehow and my first instinct was that this has to be the “after” photo, but usually these comparisons go from left to right. I’m not going to google the person because I have a feeling this isn’t worth my attention.

Indeed. The average person seems to need instagram, whatsapp and xitter to fill their meaningless little isolated lives with distractions to feel… something. However on a more positive note, once people get suspicious about AI slop they tend to notice the slop patterns more easily, which is a good development. It’s something that can’t be unseen.

AI fits very well into the “Workism” narrative. As LLMs generate the statistical medium of all the training data it has, the output is mediocre by design. That makes it an excellent tool for bullshit work, like creating an email summary of a meeting that no one will ever read, and countless other mindless and useless daily chores of the “knowledge worker”.

But the basic premise hasn’t moved an inch with AI. If you have a job which rewards creativity and needs you to develop new ideas, solve hard problems etc. then AI doesn’t do shit for you. AI gives mediocre answers to mediocre people. It’s not creative at all. It spits out the average of the sum of its training data points. If your job consists mostly of doing mindless chores then it is not a good job anyway. Nothing to be proud of, not a career, just a job.

You’re missing the point. These companies took the knowledge of the world for free and are now selling it back to us for money. Your comparison doesn’t hold up. A better analogy might be a private school stealing exactly one school book and rewriting it slightly, then selling it to the pupils. And that a billion times over

I absolutely agree that the technology in itself isn’t useless. It’s the humans and their abuse of LLMs/GenAI for everything conceivable that makes me angry. Most of the advertised use cases are just not holding up. The idea that “AI” can do everything better than humans is just wrong. It mimicks human output at best, and this also means that when trained on human garbage code it won’t generate better code than humans, statistically. It’s a probability machine, not an intelligent entity. If you keep that in mind, and if you are able to ignore all the ethical, environmental and intellectual property theft issues, then it can be a useful tool.

I’m not being sarcastic here: I’m also using LLMs for small, narrowly defined delevopment tasks, albeit with models running on local hardware mostly. But I’m constantly torn between being impressed when it actually works and being downright disgusted by the non-deterministic nature of the thing when it doesn’t.

The problem for me was the decision process and the piss poor way it was communicated, plain and simple. I’m absolutely fine with the decision in itself, it’s their platform and they can do that if they feel like it.

But instead of voting on an single agenda point about a small TOS change in a closed members meeting and dealing with the consequences later, I would have appreciated open communication and discussion on that topic not only among the members but also the user base before making such blanket decisions. As far as I heard there wasn’t even a real discussion among the members, it was just a vote on a TOS change, which was introduced and advertised by a member shortly before the meeting took place. I could be wrong on the last point, but these kinds of salami tactics or “Vereinsmeierei” in an association would make Codeberg an unreliable platform for hosting a project.

Like someone else in here has said, this time it was banning Crypto and LLMs, next time it could be Ruby on Rails (because of their ties to the racist entrepreneur DHH) or whatever TOS change makes it through their members-only voting process. Again, that’s fine for Codeberg but it’s not a good place for any non-member to host a project.

There is another problem which keeps stocks like Tesla afloat when it really should have tanked a long time ago: Index funds based on indexes like S&P 500 etc., where investors are automatically buying Tesla stock when buying into the fund, which stabilizes the stock in question. Musk knows this and that was the exact reason why he tried to get indexes to bend the rules of inclusion for spaceX to be included in indexes earlier than usual. The grave consequences are people investing in index funds are directly milked. Pension funds often include indexes, so what Musk is doing there is in effect trying to steal from people who did not actively invest in SpaceX.

Using generated lines of code as a metric is always a good idea

/S

Beautiful headline, but it’s all going downhill from there. The article is full of AI hype fueled assumptions and misses the point completely. It’s another just another article in the spirit of “You’re just prompting it wrong, bro”

There’s no denying that these new tools have already revolutionized how we create and use software. […] They may have upgraded the average skill set of software teams in a way we have not seen before.

Yeah sure, dream on. If anything, it has encouraged developers to not use their brain. Great skillset you got there.

I have indeed read the blog post and much more on their matrix and mastodon. The cited TOS are incredibly vague. What defines “mostly”? What defines “tolerated”?

Am I ok with my projects being “tolerated” or would I like to publish them on a platform that doesn’t hate me by default?

What makes all of this much worse is that people from Codeberg when asked how they will enforce the new TOS give conflicting answers, they themselves don’t know how to deal with that yet. Even in the blog post they say

“We understand that you want to know how the change affects your projects going forward. While we can’t give an easy answer, we’ll share some remarks that should address most of the concerns raised in the discussion.”

You can’t possibly be more vague than that, and it creates an unnecessary uncertainty and opens the door to moderation abuse in the name of a vague TOS one-liner. In consequence it now depends entirely on the codeberg admins’ individual perception of what the TOS one-liner means to assess if your project should be killed. Having seen some outright toxic behaviour of Codeberg people on mastodon and in the matrix chat regarding that topic I have serious doubts that this will be handled in a transparent way. The way codeberg is handling this topic is just just irresponsible and piss poor communication. I have completely lost my trust in them and will move on.

Edit: I think a good approach would have been to have a discussion about it not only among members but also among the userbase, and then deciding on how to go forward. But the way it seems to have happened (hearsay tbh) there wasn’t even a real discussion among the members, the TOS change was simply an agenda item in the members meeting which was then voted upon.