MagentaMold

@ambiguous_yelp

Can you please expand on what kind of responsibility in here is to take?
I fail to see what the damage is and what the solution should be.
Maybe you can help dense people like me to have a better overview of the problem.

@GrapheneOS

@elle @GrapheneOS @dasmatus

As per pollution and similar topics, people shouldn't blame a small company for using newer technologies.
They should blame technology
builders/owners for not building it or maintaining it in a sustainable way.

If I buy a car to go to work, I can't be blamed for the entire automobile pollution of the world, can I?

The "if nobody use it" argument is flawed, because you cannot educate/enforce this decision planet-wise.

@elle @GrapheneOS @dasmatus

I couldn't read all the links, I will catch them up slowly.
I see most of them make the same point: code quality being lower.

I agree, with this reserve: what I get back from AI will be _very_ different from others would get, because I will pack my expertise in my prompts (which is not enough to ask proper code).

Great devs tho, will possibly have quality output.

On top of this, as long as strict review is in place, I would say that there's no real difference.

@GrapheneOS @zm

> It must meet high standards to pass code review

I think that everything correctly reviewed must be accepted.

Even using my best skepticism, I heavily trust GOS team.
Looking at how things were managed in the past, I strongly believe they will make the correct choices for the project :)

In all my ignorance, If the code submitted does what it has to and it's written in correct idiomatic ways (for maintainability), I would even argue that it doesn't matter who/what wrote it.

@zm @GrapheneOS

I think you are over-estimating.
Vast majority of GOS users do not have such strong opinions on AI use.

In any case, I understand your points about AI slop, but re-reading GOS posts here on socials give me the impressions you are talking about different usage.

I think you both agree on most of the points, and GOS seems to have acknowledge all downsides, limiting AI usage to check on code, and not writing it.

Is this assessment correct or I am missing something?

@elle @GrapheneOS @dasmatus

What options are available?
What are the rough costs involved?
What kind of expertise is needed to help?
What is a realistic timeframe to shift from a big tech frontier AI tool to an alternative option?

I am genuinely asking, this is not to provoke.
I lack knowledge and I am trying to better understand the situation, I think you can help me (and others) to have a better picture.

In this moment, I really fail to see what's wrong in revising code with these tools.

@corigan01 @GrapheneOS @laura_ge

I think there's some misunderstanding.
People are jumping at conclusions too fast.

I guess what'ss happening is GOS team starting to embrace new technologies to *check* on code.
It seems they decided that dealing with false positives is a burden they are willing to take to receive also true positives.

There is a huge man in the loop involved in the process and only to *find* (not fix) bugs before they can be found by adversaries.

Am I missing something?

@lumi @GrapheneOS @antsyboi

Can you please elaborate on how genAI should be unethical?

Genuinely asking, I am wondering why it's the case