khaelenmore

6 ms·

1.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
This title is a perfect illustration of how misleading titles can be. While if you read the article, you see that > The GCC maintainers are free to accept legally insignificant contributions generated by an LLM Not even assisted by LLM
2.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
They only forbid what they name "legally significant". Which means that small scale contributions may still be produced by slop-machines. It's still possible to miss a bad line in this amount of code (15 lines they say). They
3.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
It's extremely disturbing to see literally all foundational projects succumbing to the slop-monster. It's only a matter of time now until the critical mass of hard to detect bugs accumulate in the project, making gcc completely un
4.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
Can we ever trust a compiler written by a slop-machine? While "legally insignificant" is small enough to not let too much unwanted behaviour pass the review, it's still a possibility. Human reviews are not perfect and "
5.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
In fiction there is usually an assumption that AI/Robot/Machine character is sentient. It may be different from human, but it is thinking, learning, feeling, and creating. Real "AI" we have is nothing like this. It'
6.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
You are missing a very important thing here. AI-written slop cannot be "genuinely useful". It's always a buggy mess that no sane person would ever run on their machine (especially old and rare one). When building a tool yours
7.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
"higher quality output" and "ai" in a single sentence sound like a joke. Let me rephrase it as "we'll feed you the slop we make because we can and because we think most of you won't even look"
8.
by khaelenmore 2mo ago
It's an expected consequence of using slop-generating service to write the code for you. Eventually issues slip through and pile up, leading to all kinds of issues including leaks.
9.
by khaelenmore 5mo ago
That's all you need to know about DRM - when "pirates" bypass it, paying users are taking the hit. And I'm not speaking about cost of implementing a technology to actively make the product worse.
10.
by khaelenmore 5mo ago
Yes. This will make imaginary wealth not viable. And then real wealth can be taxed
11.
by khaelenmore 7mo ago
That's where my rule "don't pay for anything digital unless you get the DRM-free files" comes from.
12.
by khaelenmore 7mo ago
And with this ugly hole in the screen again. They could have put it in the very center of the screen at least, to make it even more annoying
13.
by khaelenmore 8mo ago
For me it's not pixels in total, but pixels per inch. Why? Because like on a larger desk I can put more stuff, on a larger screen I can do the same. And yes, 96 or maybe even 72 dpi is pretty much enough. And yes, I love large screen
14.
by khaelenmore 9mo ago
For DOS, IMO, it's overkill. DOSBox-X does a very good job even for late and heavy dos games and is far more performant. A big advantage of DOSBox is not needing to setup a real OS inside the emulator - things just work. For Windows th
15.
by khaelenmore 9mo ago
A sinking ship is becoming a sunken ship, I guess. With this rate of changes and "AI" in charge, I would be surprised if Windows will not finally turn into an unusable mess of bugs, memory leaks (no, Rust does not prevent them) an
16.
by khaelenmore 9mo ago
Precisely why we need a reliably working search engine without llm, ai and other nonsense
17.
by khaelenmore 9mo ago
60FPS ought to be enough for anyone *I'm joking. 30 is enough
18.
by khaelenmore 9mo ago
"AI" doesn't know anything. It just generates sequences of words vaguely resembling meaningful text.
19.
by khaelenmore 10mo ago
Are there any reasonable on screen keyboards for wayland already? Something on par with onboard i.e. all keys available. Without that wayland is no go for at least half of my active linux devices.