The number of people--adults included--who, when don't know something they could easily think about, resort to some AI bot rather than thinking, and developing their mind and intelligence, is staggering. Giving kids a reason not to think and develop their intelligence seems a pathway to even further declines in intelligence. Seems a quick route to dementia in old age too: if you fail to exercise and maintain something it eventually stops working.
I teach children. You have no idea how much social media has affected their attention, memory, critical reasoning and social skills: the social repercussions will be felt for decades.
And this isn't mentioning exposing easily malleable minds to propaganda paid for by states that see the UK as an enemy, all before their critical reasoning skills, and awareness of their emotions, and how their emotions can be used against them, have had the chance to develop.
I expect this to massively electorally backfire on the government. But in the long run, it will be more than worth it. The only alternative would be to blanket ban phones in schools, although they'll still be plugged into social media the minute they leave.
I believe that I would be happy to recompense someone for their efforts since, providing I enjoy the music, I happily give money to buskers.
Yet getting my credit card out for a stranger everytime I half-enjoy an article is not something I'm going to do.
Unless the answer is payment friction, assumed wealth or assumed effort, I can't seem to reconcile why I'm happy to recompense buskers but unwilling to recompense bloggers whose article I'll enjoy once and whose website I'll likely never visit again.
In an internet of initially-convincing yet insubstantial AI-slop, people hawking every fad going, and knowing your hard-work will be fed into a AI model that you'll later be charged for, I can't help but feel there must be a solution.
I theorise that many social ills come from workers having less pride in their skills and achievements, and a greater sense of social alienation, due to automation.
If you spend countless hours at work, and you partially define yourself by your work, and you realise you are easily replaceable then I cannot imagine this comes without mass social malaise that manifests itself elsewhere.
When you know you're essentially babysitting the workhorse to ensure it doesn't go off the rails, I can't see job satisfaction, and the social consequences of such, increasing.
Get people hooked, tell them spending time coding is no longer needed, let their skills deteriorate, tell them they need cough up for a licence to do their job
Forcing developers to pay for models that were build on code they scraped scott-free
A tax to do their job that developers are jumping at the chance to pay
Everybody's finally realising that node dependencies are a threat, but letting these AI companies gatekeep the industry is a bandwagon people are scrambling towards
I'm perhaps missing something but if there were a significant connection, wouldn't this mean those in sunnier climates would have better verbal and visual memory?
If there were a connection then I would wager that there are more significant factors, since I have seen or heard of no evidence to assume those in sunnier climates have better verbal and visual memory.
The results of this study seem to show no significant correlation, anyhow.
From my fairly quick reading, their premise seems to be "we can no longer trust /unknown/ developers who use AI to understand and maintain the code they submit", rather than a simple attack on those who use AI.
This seems fair to me: numerous developers would love to put "contributed to the Ladybird project" on their curriculum vitaes, and AI tools can now make this within the reach of a huge number of people.
But the Ladybird project needs more than just working-code, something that AI can easily produce: they need code that is understood and maintainable by the person who submitted it.
Not only does AI-generated code fail to guarantee this understanding and maintenance (to a greater degree than before), but the developers increasingly need to get through an avalanche of AI-generated pull requests rather than, say, code new features.
I would prefer projects to be developed in the open: but when developing in the open makes the code checking exponentially harder, and the chance of the submitters sticking around becomes significantly lower, then I can at least understand.
When the dam starts to overflow, then something needs to be done.
The rust conversion was a byte-for-byte replica of the original's bytecode, was it not? Thereby it was easily possible to validate the quality of the AI-based work. The same would obviously not be possible for patches. I don't believe you can use the rust conversion as a valid, if implied, argument that you can take AI-patches in good faith.
OpenAI etc, are, however advertising them like they are magical oracles, on the verge of lifting humanity to next phrase of civilisation. The idea the majority of users know what nondeterministic even means it's a massive, massive ask
Most of the time you don't need redundancy. You need regular backups for exceptional circumstances. And k8s gives you more complexity, and more problems through more moving parts, to give you the possibility of using a feature you'll never need, and if you do start to use it it'll probably be instead of fixing performance problems downstream
It frames themselves as under attack, which thereby gives themselves moral justification to attack, and when those attacked attack back they fulfill their justification, and the circle of violence and death perpetuates.
People from a nation think and write alike because they share a common canon of literature and stories.
It's just a pity AI was trained on mindless, garbage business-speak, and now that's our globalised common literature.
And now we're feeding that regurgitated mindless, garbage business-speak back into AI models, thereby reinforcing the garbage and further rotting our minds.
The grammatical usage and structures are a huge tell. Perfect and soulless.