This post was deleted
Replying to @SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone
I don’t see how you were “dunked on”. There was one (1) person who went farther than voicing legitimate concerns… and then you were a twat and a half about it in the edited post. “Politely go fuck yourself” with a smile is worth a downvote.
Developers have been getting criticism for using particular tools for decades. For using Electron, for using systemd, for developing in Rust, for not developing in Rust, for using GTK or Qt… but when LLMs get involved, it’s suddenly verboten and you get to take some reductive moral high ground because “it’s just a tool”?
(edit) Just to answer the actual question:
- If you don’t need to use AI, don’t. Messy, undocumented, human-authored code deserves more respect than clean code with dubious authorship.
- Show how the sausage is made. Don’t just push your project as a single squashed commit; it makes you look like you have something to hide. (edit 2) If a commit contains AI-generated anything, mark it as such.
- Again, don’t be a twat when you inevitably get pushback. As a developer
of supposedly 25 years, you should be familiar with thatof no particular renown, you should learn how to handle it gracefully before a reputation develops around you.
Replying to @rtxn@lemmy.world
Ok, fair enough about “dunked on”. The exact nuance of Americanisms occasionally escapes me, in the same way “rooting for the home team” means something very different once you cross the equator. I’ll concede that, and stop trying to translate into lingo that isn’t mine.
On sequencing of events: I posted about my project as a genuine “hey, look at this cool thing I did”, with no intention to share the codebase until others asked for it. Literally no intention, grabbing for likes or stars on Github.
Someone responded by calling me “fluent in slop” - directed at a person who is, for what it’s worth, autistic. I wrote the original post and then rewrote the AI disclosure with some cheek baked back in. So, the twattery had a catalyst.
Which, I’ll note, is a word you’ve used twice in one comment while advising me not to be one :)
Finally: you’re conflating me with the author of Cliparr. I’ve never claimed 25 years of development (and if anything, I prefer not to talk about professional roles on social media). He’s the gent being called a slop merchant preemptively in the other thread, who inspired this one.
Replying to @SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone
you’re conflating me with the author of Cliparr
My mistake, I’ve edited the comment to reflect this. Although I don’t understand, then, why you even brought Cliparr up. You’re not involved, and only taking offence on someone else’s behalf.
That also means that the lovely message of “Ipso facto, for all the AI “Akshually” pedants, I’ve tagged this as AIP. Politely go fuck yourselves :)” was precipitated by a single negative interaction and a handful of downvotes. Regardless of linguistic and cultural differences, that’s just being a dick, and it should be pointed out. Perhaps you should reexamine how you handle criticism.
Replying to @rtxn@lemmy.world
I brought up Cliparr because someone was being pre-emptively called a slop merchant before anyone had looked at their code. You don’t have to be personally involved to think that’s worth pushing back on.
On the catalyst: you’ve characterised it as “a single negative interaction and a handful of downvotes.” You’ve also already acknowledged you missed the deleted posts. Those two things are doing quite a bit of work together. The comment that preceded the edit wasn’t a downvote - it was being told I was “fluent in slop”, and that my app might kill someone, directed at someone who is autistic. That’s the interaction we’re talking about.
I’ll take the broader point that the phrasing was undiplomatic. But “perhaps you should reexamine how you handle criticism” is a bit rich from someone who’s called me a twat twice and is now on their third comment about it.