I'm the opposite personally; I love automating things (not my main job, but it makes things easier in the long run) but bash sucks my soul out.
What I do on occasion if it's a nontrivial script (or I don't feel like remembering how to handle non positional arguments) is have the AI write it up, and then I verify by myself it is correct. I can write the script and understand it over an afternoon, it's more that I just don't find it enjoyable.
Cheaper than automating with an AI, it's deterministic, and I don't end up eyeballing the clock every 5 minutes at 2pm because I hit one of the many rough parts of bash.
Any performance gains caused by the internal bandwidth of the card will evaporate once you spill into system RAM, because now your bottleneck is probably a slow PCI lane.
And if your jobs do fit onto a 24GB card, then you are not the target user for the "AI mini PC" niche that these guys are trying to carve out
Exapunks and TIS-100 were a huge influence on my career trajectory.
I was always scared of assembly and low level stuff as a kid / college student, who mostly was trying to learn from random sites that assumed a lot of CS background.
Even though they're not near the complexity of x86, these games made me realize that assembly isn't really that scary. I still don't daily drive x86, but they gave me the confidence to go through a few Advent of Code and Project Euler problems. Having a really stripped down assembler was a fantastic learning tool!
Without them, I'd probably still only be working in Python (which is a great language, but abstracts a lot)
It looks like git after 2.22 was dropped because it took an LLM commit. Same with ghc.
If I have to choose between this or git and the latest ghc, I think I'm going to just wait for someone to fork annex.
I don't even feel strongly one way or the other on AI stuff; pragmatically, I'm just not going to stop using the most widely used version controller, or Haskell, just for some guy's (forkable, AGPL licensed) hobby project.
UX work is often also a lot heavier and more subjective than the plumbing.
I might open a pull request to support some new video code, and that might only require a few dozen lines over a few files. That's easy to review, and it either works or it doesn't. Worst case they say "our convention is to register codecs as a subclass of X class, but you subclassed Y class" or something equally straightforward.
Let's say instead I wanted to change the workflow to register an account. Now I'm changing a bunch of JavaScript, CSS, templates, I'm adding pages, and I also need to update the backend. Even if someone is that into frontend work, it might take forever to even get reviewed by the maintainers because it's a massive PR.
Plus, now we've moved into subjectivity land: "I'm used to the old workflow," (because they designed it) "The last one was really easy" (for an engineer), "I think we should focus on the backend before we work on the UI," "I don't like this font because the license isn't free as in freedom" etc.
Even if you just mockup something on Figma or whatever, unless you're a maintainer it's probably going to just get ignored as a feature request. Because there's also the psychological aspect of basically being told that the UI you wrote is implicitly bad, if you're the maintainer reviewing the mockup.
Academics base their careers around citation numbers. You need publications and a high H-index to make it anywhere. Self-plagiarism reduces the effectiveness of that metric, which makes it harder to evaluate the actual impact of a researcher.
It should be no surprise that republishing in multiple journals was accepted in the pre-computer era, where citations were inherently harder to track (and thus less valuable as a metric).
Quoting Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
> I typed the project name into Google, and my repository appeared in the results. I entered the same query into Bing, and someone else’s repository appeared in the results
Side story, this kind of thing is what made me stop using Bing.
I had been using it as the default for searches (it sucks, but it's at least not Google), until I landed on a phishing page for my bank (I haven't committed it to memory yet). The page was a near perfect copy, and I would easily have gotten pwnd by it if they didn't have a modal asking me to run some code in my terminal for "security activation" that made me go "that's a little odd... Is this the right address OH SHIT that's a .ru domain"
I never see Google return phishing pages or typo squatters in the first page. Bing constantly returns that stuff in the first several results.
I would argue it's not even old people. Most people do not have any understanding of what's going on when you click a button. Website either acts as expected, or it doesn't "work"
If the button doesn't work, the average user is going to say "this most be broken" and then use a competitor (or contact your support). That's why it's really important to error-proof one's design (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poka-yoke).
So instead of the button failing because you didn't check a box, pop up with a message telling them "Please click $box before continuing". Or if you want to be fancy, feed them whatever form you're giving them piecemeal, so that they can't continue until they finish this small part (e.g., have them input a name, then the next page only has a spot for an address, then the next page only has a spot for card information, then the next only has a spot to select shipping). Simple bite sized chunks anyone (well, anyone you would ethically want to sell to) can understand.
Before gen code killed the freelance business model, there were hoards of people on Upwork/Fiverr willing to fuck other freelancers over and underpay themselves to make whatever barely-working slop you wanted.
Hell, before managers got the idea of AI layoffs, they had been off-shoring to low-quality code sweatshops for years. That was supposed to kill software engineering in the States 20 years ago. And it was just as frustrating (if not moreso) to get them to actually fulfill the project requirements.
The graveyards are filled with people who had the right-of-way, who died knowing they were in the right.
And even if it's a slow speed accident, who cares about being right if you get a disability in the process? It is safer to let them through so they don't plow into you when you have to suddenly stop.
The only reason to LARP as a highway cop is just ego.
Being book-smart or correct is only half of the skill in sharing knowledge. While often overlooked, the voice in which the knowledge is delivered matters.
This is arguably more important than the the actual depth knowledge, given how many people have flocked to soft-spoken random text generators in comparison.
For better or for worse, people are cursed with ego, and we need to account for that when communicating with others. It is a failing of the platform (and a tragedy, because it is healthier to learn from a human) that it was unable to foster a positive environment.
What I do on occasion if it's a nontrivial script (or I don't feel like remembering how to handle non positional arguments) is have the AI write it up, and then I verify by myself it is correct. I can write the script and understand it over an afternoon, it's more that I just don't find it enjoyable.
Cheaper than automating with an AI, it's deterministic, and I don't end up eyeballing the clock every 5 minutes at 2pm because I hit one of the many rough parts of bash.