Epp

There’s also my favorite, Playnite.

Technically, yes.

“Make commits sporadically, using inexact terms, occasional typos and every once in a while, forget to include a file that then necessitates a follow-up commit of a single line that simply says ‘whoops’”

You can cherry pick the numbers in either direction technically - you can operate an LLM without a GPU to make the AI power usage really low, and you can play a game with only basic 2D visuals that has low power usage.

However, the ideal in both cases will fully utilize a high powered GPU, so it’s a wash. During the day my GPU is answering prompts using the Qwen 3.6 LLM, and at night it’s ray-tracing in Cyberpunk 2077. In both cases it’s using a ton of power, but in only one of those two scenarios is it actually producing anything of value.

Same here. There’s too many evil people, and too many believe that people can’t be evil.

It does, yes, because policies meant to punish those billionaires also affect those using the technology responsibly, like myself. That’s why I make a point of highlighting the distinction. I don’t enjoy being maligned because people automatically associate AI with data centers.

Keep fighting the good fight! I was heartened to read that Erin Brockovich is leading the charge opposing data centers. I sincerely hope she, or someone like her, is successful.

You’d be surprised. The most egregious is when community members can’t tell, so they begin debating whether or not something “is slop.” Iif you try to point out that if they can’t tell then by definition that means it’s not slop, they will only get angry, insisting that the definition of slop is anything made by AI.

Oh, without a doubt. They’ll get some low-hanging fruit, I’m sure.

Yeah, and Lemmy users are unemployed basement dwellers.

What’s that, not all of them? Oh, but some of them, so I can claim it’s “objectively true” 🤷

Except when you can’t discern the difference between hand crafted and AI-generated, but they insist on calling it slop. Then it loses all meaning, and becomes clear it’s just antagonistic slang used by the prejudiced. Same with vibe, when they use it to mean any use of AI in coding.

In other words, there is slop and there are vibe coded projects, but the most offensive use those terms universally simply to be derogative and incendiary.

Yes, video games as a technology are worse for the environment than AI as a technology. I think you don’t believe me because you’re conflating the technology of AI with the data centers being built for the express purpose of AI. Those data centers are much worse for the environment than video games, yes, but they aren’t necessary to have AI. AI can be performed using a fraction of the hardware used to play video games. I am very, VERY opposed to data centers, but I’m a huge proponent of both games and AI. So I’m being pedantic to make a point.

Thank you. I hope it changes, too. I’m just waiting impatiently for the Big Beautiful Day when I can read that Big Beautiful Obituary, and pop open a bottle of champagne and try to rebuild my hope for the future.

That makes sense.

They haven’t had a reason to hide it before now. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone now “vibe coded” a suite of obfuscation tools specifically to avoid detection.

Yes, that’s why I said it’s a matter of prejudice. Assuming the projects are low quality, copyright violating and resource hogging are all conclusions reached by prejudice. You’re right there are other options available; my comment is just an observation.

I feel the same way about video games. I love them, but I know it’s needlessly sucking away electricity just to entertain me. Not to mention the electricity used by the developers, artists, sound designers, composers, etc to create the game in the first place. They’re even worse for the environment than AI. And even if you ignore all that, they serve no purpose outside of the frivolity that is entertainment.

The worst part is that no one ever points it out. They’re all hyper-focused on AI to realize that video games are far more destructive, and have been for decades. With AI, at least, the productivity gains can be harnessed by taxing corporations that utilize it, to fund Universal Basic Income so everyone benefits, but there’s no productivity gains with video games - just productivity loss.

Oh well, I personally don’t think society will survive another decade, so I’m just going to enjoy my video games, and create more video games using AI, because my actions are a tiny drop in an overwhelmingly massive bucket I can’t even see the other side of.

“Suspicious commit pattern” sounds like a pretty flimsy basis for banning a human from the platform. If nothing else, this futile crusade will be entertaining for almost everyone; except for their support staff who will need to investigate and either defend or repeal the been each time there’s a false-positive, and a person is accused of wrong-think because yesterday they commit twice in an hour whereas they usually only commit once per hour.

Oh, I see. You assume agentic AI that can perform it’s own commits. That would make it easy to tell, but you’d have to be really stupid to give AI such unfettered access to your repository.

Yes, I am. I have a global pre-processor directive for all of my prompts, so it always includes “match existing code style, formatting and conventions.” The result is indistinguishable from hand written code. Thinking you can magically discern what was written by AI is delusional.

Yeah, just like more experienced artists can see the AI generated pixels.

This is just to let fly their prejudice flag. There’s no way to actually tell AI was used if the planning and assisting meta-data files aren’t committed to the repo. Nothing has truly changed. They might as well banned anyone who thinks about the color pink more then twice per day - it would be just as easy to enforce.

Same here. I think Lemmy is the den of vipers when it comes to hate and prejudice of AI.

Eh…I don’t know that that’s a viable solution.

Take me, for example - I get $19 of tokens per month through one of my employers. That used to be more than enough to do nearly everything I wanted every month. Now, that’s one minor feature per month. So I don’t bother even using them. Instead, I use the GPU on my leisure/gaming laptop, and it processes all my LLM requests locally. So I have unlimited tokens.

I think the actual solution is patience. As the tools improved in quality, so too do the quality of the PR. Soon, I believe, they will be better quality than they have been ever before. If maintainers can just hold out that long … 🤞

Alright, you’ve demonstrated the difficulty posed by reality; let’s hear your proposed solution?

At which point, I’d reply: eliminate the verbosity. Be succinct, or I’m closing this PR and line of communication.

Based on the fact that it is now reality, and there is no alternative. Adapt or die.

Even if, moronically, Linus had followed the popular trend of banning AI tools - the only thing that would change is disclosure. The reality is, the tools will be used either way, and banning just means they won’t report the tools used.

Whether AI tools are used or not, a person is still attaching their identity to the submission. Regardless of the tools they did, or did not use, they are stamping the end result. The only feasible solution in the long term is to scrutinize those submitting PR, rather than attempting to police the tools they used to create them.

I like you, a lot. Thanks for existing, intelligent, rational and pragmatic stranger.

There’s also arguments to be made that there is nothing unethical about the tools in general, only with specific LLM models due to the practices of their maintainers, and the closed status of specific models.

Yes and yes.

It actually is, but you want it to be literally the same. Given the options of what it can be compared to, learning is the most appropriate, which is exactly why it’s named Machine Learning. The only reason you could believe otherwise is if you have no concept of language, and believe that it must be literally identical to a person learning in order to use the same verbiage.

It does not; which is the reason why it’s called learning. It’s the closest, and most accurate approximation, regardless of the mathematical operations on which it’s based.

Thank you for the opinion. If there’s a trial, and if you’re called as an expert witness, I’m sure they’ll consider your opinion, and have a fun debate on whether a human brain being similar to a computer is relevant in any way.

In the meantime, the technology exists, is useful and the results are no more theft than creating piñatas from newspaper clippings is theft from the newspaper.

Only when the date in question is so oblique as to the original source being the only place in which the data exists, which is neither common, nor useful in practice.

That’s splitting hairs on definitions, with no change in meaning. It’s still not copying the data, and is far closer to a person learning than to a picture taken by a camera.