I saw precisely this, that the AI are pretty terrible at generating switch configuration, which surprised me as I thought that would have gone pretty well.

And sure, people might guess and some people guess with similar confidence, but I can’t stand those folks already (extends to AI).

But the plausible looking config with supreme confidence already convinced the non technical management that we should rely heavily upon it.

I hate doing a lot of code review all at once, and AI vomits a lot of code. Hopefully the mistake is obviously big and up front, but all too often the mistake dwells in the details that I would likely be too tired to notice after a lot of plausible code.

With human code to review at least the volume is generally workable and when it’s wrong, it tends to be more obviously wrong. A human that takes care of very detailed facets with care inspires trust in their thoroughness, but codegen looks that way without the thorough consideration.

I find it anti addictive. Work is pretty aggressive (but now not too aggressive thanks to cost, but still a bit aggressive). So everyone is expected to show some utilization or be shunned. For the first time, I find myself thinking it might be nice to get out of this entire industry, if only I could afford to

Anyway, I managed to consume what was my monthly quota in a week and was quite happy that I could credibly ignore AI for the next three weeks.

Then disappointed as an administrator quintupled my quota the next day.

Though nothing is nearly as annoying as everyone else’s use is AI. I hate using it, and it’s just even worse dealing with the consequences of other people using it.

Note on shorts they removed the thumbs down button shortly after AI slop became a huge thing in shorts.

That seems to indicate a certain direction to me.

Private companies are allowed to decline to host at their will. USA nor EU mandate that a platform must host content they don’t want to.

In practice, it’s possible that China companies operating outside of China won’t implement the same restrictions that they do within China. Whatever the Chinese government thinks the importance of maintaining censorship within the borders, it seems probable that the government and companies will be more pragmatic about realities in other nations.

On purpose? Not much.

The bigger concern would be when a criticism of China would be an important facet of a topic that would be covered, and omitting that would detract from the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the content.

Imagine if video hosting platforms couldn’t call out any of the stuff Trump does as wrong or incompetent. So so many topics would have to be ignored entirely to avoid offending the administration. Currently China criticism is a little less critical in the moment by comparison, but things shift over time.

For American consumer, sure.

But there may be price relief as the ultra rich datacenters insist they need to be able to source that Chinese memory and get some special exemptions, probably after a few million in bribes to Trump. That might free up some supply.

There is some decent Chinese stuff. Sometimes it’s hard to know though with the flood of crap. For example Anker seems consistently decent, but anything that sounds like Qihoon or Xiyomao or whatever random brand word they pop into existence on the other hand…

Note that the negative impact of these facilities are, by designed, concentrated on the communities that get stuck with them. The overall percentage has to be considered in the context of them focusing that impact into relatively small, super dense footprints.

Also, the percentage is higher than 1%, and in the US is about 5%. This reflects the current situation that the AI companies lament is just too constrained on them, with ambitions of getting to 20% if circumstances allow them to build up the way they want. So it’s already somewhat significant, especially with the way it gets concentrated, and further they want to bump it up at least four fold beyond what they’ve managed to do so far.

In anticipation of that, energy strategies that planned to be more tame and grow by renewables got pushed aside in favor of more natural gas, and especially portable power generation which tends to be more polluting.

The politicians of those communities have failed their constituents.

Sure, but have they failed their own bank accounts? Need to ask the important questions…

True, though not a whole lot of people think as highly about Eclipse or Apache as folks do Linux.

I don’t think companies are jumping up and down to try to manipulate their way to having nominal affinity to those projects compared to how so many companies want to have the ‘Linux approved’ impression with people not paying close attention to the ‘foundation’.

And in fact, I frequently have disagreed with the Linux foundation and think it shouldn’t carry the name Linux, as most of their projects aren’t particularly related to Linux work.

It’s been a way for corporations to attach the Linux marketing value to their pet projects for a long time.

Based on my AI enthusiast colleagues, I totally believe 100x productive.

100 x 0 == 0

So funny thing, a colleague of mine was arguing that there’s no reason to do a compiler because he got Claude to generate ELF binary directly for a hello world…

Some of the AI bros are very extremely bullish on it too the point of saying compilers are a waste of time…

Hence my references to DNS records in addition to MX to determine if an endpoint is SMTP only or better. For compatible interop.

Looks like replacing IMAP rather than SMTP, which is significantly less thorny.

Frankly, I’m rather shocked it hasn’t happened by now.

We’ve tried to bandaid over it with various weird things, but fundamentally SMTP is just weird.

I could easily imagine a domain having some SRV record to advertise “hey, I support NeoSMTP”, and peers switching to that instead, possibly pinning on successful NeoSMTP negotiation.

Get rid of a lot of the relaying which has not been useful in modern times and only a liability, and perhaps offer an https option to be less likely to be blocked (a TXT record to indicate url, and a node could declare their NeoSMTP entry point as https://mail.server/NeoSMTP/ or whatever works for them).

I was so happy when I ran out of tokens, I could just keep programming without management micromanaging how I got my job done.

The author seems to think this is some horribly intolerable scenario, impossible to keep going. That without tokens you can do nothing. Lamenting that it’s impossible to understand the code the LLM put out. This is a bad sign. If you let the LLM get beyond your ability to reasonably understand and audit, then you run the risk of getting screwed at any moment. If I saw this perspective from anyone that did work for me, I told be avoiding letting them anywhere near anything potentially important.

Net this has been the worst thing to happen to the discipline of software development. Maybe after the bubble pops we can have the more reasonable takes, but right now it’s just insufferable.

It’s not the creators intent, is the closed captioner. The director does not play a role in what goes into the closed captions generally.

Well a light refactor of deduplicating code would be a refinement that is generally easy to review and likely comfortably in the capability of the codegen.

Versus creating, which generally is harder to review and requires the submitter to explain the rationale behind the change.

Volume of code and nature of change.