gooeyglob

The real benefit of PBS is it does not store the backup as just a 1:1 dump of the VM disk, it’s incremental - if the VM you’re backing up for say the 3rd or 4th or 20th time doesn’t have much new or changed data, it’s not a linearly increasing amount of storage on your backup server, the new backup is actually trivially small. This really helps you have longer backup retention if files aren’t actually changing all that often.

I got tired of stressing about whether my backup host might be down when my primary Proxmox host dies, even if they’re in different data centers - well, as far as I know anyway! Now I just use BackBlaze B2 storage for the PBS off-site backup (compatible with Amazon S3), albeit it’s a little finnicky to set up and working 100%. Yes it’s still ‘just someone else’s computer’, but for the ~12 bucks it’s costing me for almost 2TB of backup data I am not stressing about it.

Well aside from the obvious giveaways in the presentation format of the README.md, and .gitignore, the very first question of its FAQ is:

“You use LLMs? 🤯”

Yes. Heavily. Claude and GLM-5.2 wrote a lot of this repo.

Yes this is needed. Thank you for the proposal here.

I would suggest that this probably needs to be really explicit about any AI involvement, i.e. a minimum if AI is used in any capacity in the coding process, it should require the tag. And ideally an explanation if it was used in other parts of the process.

That last post that came up said they used AI ‘for code review only’. In my mind even that deserves the tag, because these terms are so easy to work around. Someone can ‘code up’ the following:

#include <studio.h> int main(void) { printf(“Program that does X thing”;) }

(yes, I know the main arguments are not written correctly. You get the point)

and then have the AI reviewer ‘fix’ their code by doing all the actual work. A strict requirement for this tag, for any AI involvement in the creation of the code seems like the key. The code part is going to be where the security issues crop up, and where it’s really important to know who or what is producing the code you’re about to run on your home server.

I think we’re fairly used to a world where people use templates for their websites, documentation, etc. AI use there bothers me less, but an honest disclaimer saying what the AI did would sure go a long way to reducing the hate comments. I think people will still drive-by downvote, but that can’t (and IMO really shouldn’t be) prevented. But without a rule, people aren’t going to be honest.

The scary part is just how emboldened people feel nowadays to just entirely use an AI for all the coding, documentation, website, and then not even put their name on the project. These to me feel like borderline state actor trojan horses disguised as open-source projects.

Legitimate open source developers can spend years writing code to do something very sinplle but useful, and for them to be drowned out by a bunch of completely AI driven, slop posts really bothers me.