The “we’re not allowed to discuss” line? I suppose that assumes a level self-censur that is debatable.

Or do you mean the part about SUV ownership having demonstrable effects of human behavior? That is true.

I would say vibe-coding is on topic for programming humor.

The documentation is what gets me. Why did a bot need to write the documentation?

I can stomach using an LLM as basically a really good static analyzer (begrudgingly) but having it write the docs? How do I know you know what the code does if you didn’t even write the docs?

Vibecoders whose feelings are hurt?

I wonder if its a symptom of the fact that vibecoding is just not cool.

What? Where is eugenics mentioned in the meme?

I’m genuinely curious, I see no reference to selective breeding in here.

Straight up I’m not even being deliberately dense, where’s the eugenics?

Big oof on the LLM thing. Best of luck I suppose

There’s no such thing as “just a tool”.

https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool

They explicitly reference the LLM generated front end code eventually being replaced when they can “hire a proper JS/CSS” dev.

So hopefully that happens in the near future!

Love the disclosure of AI in the frontend, will be keeping and eye on this one as he replaces the frontend code.

Very cool!

Removed by mod

Bug where bug belongs

After bug is the same as before bug.

You have already experienced the loss of bug. Do not fear the absence of bug.

I would be open to this.

I despise AI, fully and completely. If given the opportunity to live and work somewhere where it doesn’t exist I would happily.

It’s correct that, at this point, I cannot 100% guarantee that code in the kernel did not pass through an LLM. However, having a policy that prohibits AI generated content, in an already pretty niche project, gives me reasonable assurance that every line of code passed through a human brain at some point, preferably several times.

I would much prefer to live in a world where I had a 100% guarantee that no LLM even saw the code being written but that’s life I suppose.

The only reporting on close personal ties between Amodei and people like Wijk I can find are Breitbart and the New York Post. While I wouldn’t put it past him to basically seed a model safety organization for the purpose of hype, that’s getting into a level of conspiracy that will need better receipts than the rags I’ve seen report on it.

Ehhh, nuance.

He does bring up a point that religious frameworks tend to influence behavior much more powerfully than material incentives do. Outside the context of theocracy being the alternative; living in a post-democracy neoliberal technocracy is miserable. Our politicians don’t believe in anything and the people come to expect this and then they don’t believe in anything. No one has any shared values or morals outside of “whatever I have to do to get ahead”.

As of yet we have not come up with a way to get socialism to have the same influence that religion does, if we can’t come up with an answer to " how do we get people to believe in things" then we’re well in truely screwed.

Again this is the difference between authorship and ownership. While I’m no lawyer, to my understanding you must demonstrate that what you did was genuinely transformative to claim authorship.

You use compiling the code an LLM gives you as an example of this. Does a person running gentoo have the ability to claim authorship of all the software on their machine because they compiled it?

I think the only thing you can certainly claim authorship over is the prompt(s) that were used to generate the output.

Another good example of this is compilers. How often do you see people claim authorship of the assembly generated as an intermediary step of the gcc?

Suppose the user could claim ownership of the prompt used to create the work; unless that was also created using an AI.

I would read the METR report regarding the huggingface attack. A lot is said about “basic cybersecurity” but if you actually read what the agents did to break out of their sandbox it’s very difficult to interpret this as intentional by OpenAI.

To be clear; this is PR for the companies. It’s just that in many of these cases the evidence points to the agents actually violating containment and actually coming up with novel solutions around their sandboxes.

Honestly been thinking about this. Everytime someone talks about “programming the holodeck” and they do it in like… 20 minutes, I have to assume that the “programming” was

“Make me a Sherlock Holmes larp. Make no mistakes”