Mastodon Feed: Posts

Boosted by brib@bribstodon.xyz ("brib :neofox_floof:​ :Nonbinary:"):
LunarAkai@tech.lgbt ("Yuki 🐰") wrote:

these two states can be true at the same time:

1. i love my puter
2. computers were a mistake, we should have never invented them. I want my goose farm.

Boosted by brib@bribstodon.xyz ("brib :neofox_floof:​ :Nonbinary:"):
jonny@neuromatch.social ("jonny (nonvenomous)") wrote:

@aud
It's a big red flag for me when people reduce animal emotions to material needs, more indicative of the grim worldview of the person and how they see others than anything. Anyone who has had a pet should be able to know there is at least something beyond a transactional material relationship.

I do wonder if there are pets or pet species that have a bond driven by hate or malice rather than love tho lol. Like "I stick around because I like to keep my enemies close." That is sort of how some of my friends who have snakes seem to think of their pets motivations.

Boosted by brib@bribstodon.xyz ("brib :neofox_floof:​ :Nonbinary:"):
jonny@neuromatch.social ("jonny (nonvenomous)") wrote:

The amount of dogs that can ride the train on their own is awesome

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
inthehands@hachyderm.io ("Paul Cantrell") wrote:

I can’t think of another time when software devs had to be •forced• en masse to use a new technology that was supposed to help them. Usually we’re kind of stupid for the shiny new things: jamming them in when they solve nothing, doing unnecessary rewrites just to use the new hotness because it’s so cool and fun. Usually we’re the one trying to shove it down mgmt’s throat (or sneak it by them) rather than the reverse.

But not this time.

7/

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
mitchellh@hachyderm.io ("Mitchell Hashimoto") wrote:

I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and its impossible to have rational conversations about it with them. I can't name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out.

I lived through the great MTBF vs MTTR (mean-time-between-failure vs. mean-time-to-recovery) reckoning of infrastructure during the transition to cloud and cloud automation. All those arguments are rearing their ugly heads again but now its... the whole software development industry (maybe the whole world, really).

It's frightening, because the psychosis folks operate under an almost absolute "MTTR is all you need" mentality: "its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" We learned in infrastructure that MTTR is great but you can't yeet resilient systems entirely.

The main issue is I don't even know how to bring this up to people I know personally, because bringing this topic up leads to immediately dismissals like "no no, it has full test coverage" or "bug reports are going down" or something, which just don't paint the whole picture.

We already learned this lesson once in infrastructure: you can automate yourself into a very resilient catastrophe machine. Systems can appear healthy by local metrics while globally becoming incomprehensible. Bug reports can go down while latent risk explodes. Test coverage can rise while semantic understanding falls. Changes happens so fast that nobody notices the underlying architecture decaying.

I worry.

Boosted by dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase"):
0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange ("abadidea") wrote:

after reading That rust PR, I can see what they were *trying* to say, but if you lead your big controversial post with “comments raising ethical or legal concerns will be moderated, technical concerns only” then absolutely the only thing anyone is going to talk about is the alarming ethical and legal concern they now have

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

so, looking at zig, there are a few problems for what i want it for that stick out, mostly in terms of things not (yet) supported.

IFUNC support will happen. sometime.

PEXT/PDEP might happen, but are trivially worked around with inline assembly. or, like... my c library for pext and pdep. but that comes with overhead you don't always want to pay for - it's to make it easy where a better solution isn't plausible.

async i/o support seems to be coming in 0.17. the big community alternative is written by a loud slop machine advocate, so i'm not going there and honestly if i'm going to have to write this shit myself i'm just going to use c because it's easier than trying to learn a language and build a bridge at the same time.

this brings us on to libraries, because literally the first community library i looked at had clod as a contributor. zig itself has an anti-slop stance, but some of the community are big fans. this means libraries are going to be even thinner on the ground than they first appear (which is fairly thin on the ground actually). i know, i can just use c libraries, but i want things like performance data structures i don't have to rewrite for every type i want to store.

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
nicuveo@tech.lgbt ("Antoine Leblanc :transHaskell:") wrote:

every conversation about the potential usefulness of AI, divorced from ethical concerns, is just this dril tweet

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
ashur@front-end.social ("Ashur Cabrera 🌺") wrote:

bun team like

Boosted by dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase"):
nikclayton ("Nik") wrote:

@mitchellh does this mean you're going to remove the "maintainers are exempt" language from https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/blob/main/AI%5FPOLICY.md ?

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
SmudgeTheInsultCat@mas.to ("Smudge The Insult Cat 🐀") wrote:

Boosted by dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase"):
RosaCtrl@vivaldi.net ("No mother, no bride, no king") wrote:

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@mitchellh/116580433508108130

"its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" means it’s fine to ship bugs because our software most likely shouldn’t exists anyways, it’s absolutely irrelevant, and we are just waiting to cash out

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
olivia@scholar.social ("Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ") wrote:

Also a short & snappy paper on these issues, esp. for psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists interested in modelling and AI & in how they contribute to or even hinder research, is this w/ @andrea @Iris

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19983695

5/

Boosted by baldur@toot.cafe ("Baldur Bjarnason"):
olivia@scholar.social ("Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ") wrote:

Finally! 🤩 Our position piece: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17065099

We unpick the tech industry’s marketing, hype, & harm; and we argue for safeguarding higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, & scientific integrity.
1/n

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

no i'm not vibe codding today, but i have been having thoughts.

most importantly, they make fewer clangers when doing less work at a time. how do you structure everything to make it do less work at a time without having to supervise it constantly? not sure. lots of files?

they are absolutely terrible at iterating. they like to give up and their solution is often to attempt a rewrite rather than fix the errors with what might have been borderline acceptable if they'd just fixed it.

oddly enough this is not an error i have with programming languages - they manage loops just fine. i could for example with the right tools rather easily knock up a loop that builds, runs the tests and otherwise instructs it to continue solving the problem. well the loop bit is easy, at least, but getting the cod to do the thing might be harder.

maybe i can drip feed it errors? it definitely gets confused when receiving a lot of them at a time and what i said earlier about less at a time might work.

so it's not a complete fix, but i think i could probably do a better job if i wrote my own vibe codding apparatus - one that appreciated that there are algorithms other than machine learning available to solve problems. unfortunately this is sounding like a lot of effort to make the silly thing less silly. like an actual engineering problem, in fact.

db@social.lol ("David Bushell 🪿") wrote:

it's sad that the football season is almost over

all we have then is two weeks of more football, followed by a summer of big football, and then finally the next football season

Boosted by db@social.lol ("David Bushell 🪿"):
nicuveo@tech.lgbt ("Antoine Leblanc :transHaskell:") wrote:

i am so tired of "ethical concerns aside" being a phrase i see every single time someone tries to defend the use of LLMs. fuck that! ethical concerns front and fucking center! it is very revealing that tech is currently in such a state that the quiet part can be said out loud without any pushback.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

A user you’ve blocked has previously contributed to this repository.

Damn, i was just about to try it out

Boosted by dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase"):
SecureOwl@infosec.exchange ("Mike Sheward") wrote:

BREAKING: GitHub switching status page default language to German in order to return to five neins.

dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase") wrote:

think i'll give zig a go again today.

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

I've been saying it for years now:

Friends don't let friends buy BambuLab printers 🤷‍♂️

Boosted by dysfun@treehouse.systems ("gaytabase"):
mookie@weredreaming.com ("steve mookie kong") wrote:

Overheard: “I feel more pressure to use AI as an adult than to do drugs as a teenager.”

#ai #llm #drugs

glyph ("Glyph") wrote:

it's that time again #python

Boosted by jwz:
jwz wrote:

@linux I wonder what the monthly cost is for that app that Mike Johnson uses to monitor his porn intake with his son. Maybe he could save some money by rawdogging that, too.

Boosted by jwz:
jwz wrote:

@linux Maybe if Mike Johnson skipped lattes and avocado toast, he could afford to survive on a mere $174,000 per year.

Boosted by jwz:
linux@s.cafe ("Linux and BSD are best 🐧😈") wrote:

Congress House Speaker Mike Johnson says we should have sympathy because Congress isn’t paid enough — so we should “allow” insider trading just so they can take care of their families.

Fuck you, Mike Johnson, and every so-called “public servant” who thinks public service is a get-rich-quick scheme.

#Corruption #Government #Congress

Attachments:

• video: As described in the comment.

Boosted by jwz:
ShadSterling wrote:

@flpvsk @jwz they couldn’t reach a consensus while including ethical concerns, so they decided to exclude ethical concerns and write a policy without considering whether or not that policy is unethical. Their willingness to accept an unethical policy is quite bad

Boosted by jwz:
jalefkowit@vmst.io ("Jason Lefkowitz") wrote:

Someone got paid more money to think this up than I have been paid in my entire life

https://www.theverge.com/news/931918/microsoft-xbox-rebrand-caps

Boosted by aredridel@kolektiva.social ("Mx. Aria Stewart"):
aurynn@cloudisland.nz ("Aurynn Shaw") wrote:

Guilt is not a strategy

Boosted by cstanhope@social.coop ("Your weary 'net denizen"):
ellipticurv3@mathstodon.xyz ("mrityunjai | मृत्युंजय") wrote:

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/652
#Comic #AI