This sounds like the rant of someone who was never disciplined enough to learn how to code. MAYBE LLMs can get us to your fantasy, they are far from it now, no matter how much you confidently declare otherwise.

Honestly, knowing data structures and algorithms is more important than before. You need to have the skills to evaluate what AI has done. Knowing how to read and write code is more important than ever, because someone has to validate and own what the AI produced.

Both major parties are bought and paid for by the same billionaires. We have a one party system with a thin veneer of choice. Good luck voting your way out of this.

No, don't you know that under capitalism markets will self regulate to achieve the optimal in... *cough cough* outcome? Buyers can self organize to avoid buying from harmful monopolies and oligopolies and instead choose to just die! And, if buyers are really upset they can just purchase politicians at a higher price than the harmful corporations do.

So glad someone else will remember him for that. For such a nice guy, he really nailed "villain you love to hate."

Now that anyone can produce an AI slop project in an afternoon, I think it's reasonable to set some kind of quality standard. I think this is just ensuring that the project authors and maintainers are really committed to the project instead of just aura farming. As a developer it really sucks when a project you depend on is abandoned after an initial big splash. I've used AI to create around 25 personal projects, all which are fairly unique and useful to me, but I won't publish them because I have zero intention to maintain them. Inexperienced "coders" won't understand what they're getting into when publishing an AI generated project. So, this just ensures that the projects promoted in the subreddit have some level of proven track record.

And, the moderators are correct, AI is bad for open source software. AI copies their homework and doesn't attribute or carry the licensing forward from the projects they copy. This isn't simply about Open Source projects using AI, but about AI being used as a loophole to separate Open Source software from its license.

A lot of the complaining is likely AI company marketing bots.

The licensing of uutils is an anti-feature. If they adopt a GNU license then I'm all for utilizing Rust. As is, it's a legal back door to a path to vendor lockin.

How about a license that invites corporations to embrace and extend the coreutils so you eventually end up locked into one vendor?

If it has uutils as the default coreutils implementation it's a no for me. For the same reason uutils is unable to solve its existing problems, the license is a poison pill I won't accept.

This is exactly it. In addition to compliance, when a breach happens, people will ask what measures did you have in place to limit or prevent this, "I have linux and therefore am a god in security, and I have no need for antivirus" does not work when you've been breached. But "I had anti virus on the systems, they failed to detect and prevent this!" does work.

Oh yes, let's ask OpenAI to voluntarily show us the secret training data for their secret model.

I understand the myopic that makes this happen. Amazon gets a marquee event, and supposedly boosts its stature and hopefully drives viewership. Everything a corporate vice president wants. The Emmy organization gets the most money, that they use for⦠whatever. Win-win right?

Well, no. Viewership will drop because now people have to get an Amazon prime subscription as opposed to simply having basic cable, or (gasp!) an antenna. They wonâ(TM)t even know when it happens because they wonâ(TM)t see the ads for it on a competing network. And so what used to be yearly appointment viewing cultural touchstone dies.

See also: Apple and the Charlie Brown specials.

But, it is invalidated if they use research that hasn't been published yet when they falsely imply that the chats are ephemeral and won't be used as training data. An equivalent in the academic world would be getting coffee with a fellow researcher, then they scoop your paper the next week.

They mashup the data they're trained on. If mathematicians have private chats with ChatGPT, Open AI will train using those private chats. It's a known fact. What "AI" is really doing is extracting intellectual effort from humans and reappropriating it to the owners of the "AI" companies. What feels like intelligence, is in fact intelligence, but not artificial.