Well, it kind of sucks to have an idea to contribute and no way to contribute because you have to be invited by someone before you can offer...

The problem is volume.

Just like AI slop content isn't generally that much worse than human slop that flooded the services, at *least* the human slop required more effort to generate than it takes a person to watch, and that balance meant the slop was obnoxious, but the amount was a bit more limited and easier to ignore.

Now the LLM enables those same people that make insufferable slop to generate orders of magnitude more slop than they could before. Complete with companies really egging them on to make as much slop as they possibly can.

LLM can be useful for generating content, but it is proportionally *way* better at generating content for content creators that don't care about their content.

Which for self-directed people is an easy-ish solution, don't let the LLM far off a leash if you use it at all. Problem is micromanaging executives that are all in and demanding to see some volume of LLM usage the way they think is correct (little prompt, large amounts of code).

As far as I've seen, the AI fanatic's answer is "don't care about the code".

They ask for something and whatever they get, they get. The bugs, the glitchiness, the "not what they were expecting" are just accepted as attempts to amend purely through prompting tend to just trade one set of drawbacks for another rather than unambiguously fix stuff. Trying again is expensive and chances are not high that it'll be that much better, unless you have an incredibly specific and verifiable set of criteria that can drive automatic retry on failure. However making that harness is sometimes harder than making the code itself, and without a working reference implementation even that may be a lost cause.

I've always hated trying to salvage outsource slop, and LLM has a very similar smell with similar reactions where people resign themselves to the crappiness.

Well, in one respect it is 'very useful'. Executive direction that the legacy codebase must be 'documented' fully. Poof, it is 'documented'. Is it correct? Who knows, no one will ever read it, but it fluffs the executives "thought leadership". The compromise between 'port the code' which is a risk no one will take and 'document the code to prepare for a porting effort that will never come'.

Just be careful to keep the LLM vomit clearly distinguished from actually curated documentation, lest some naive person one day believe the documentation is actually based on anything.

So we have LLM vomit directed in ways to make the leadership feel like we are 'properly' leveraging the hype while we wait for the hype train to run out of steam.

Problem being that this is requests from people trying to contribute.

Even when they avoided github, they got hit.

I wager at one point, a project that stayed strictly email based will have threads with this sort of slop in it.

Unless you make your repository and all means of contact with you invite-only, it's going to be hard to avoid.

Some codebases have been poorly cobbled together bits of code from stack overflow long before AI became capable of replacing the human developers who were doing it. A well trained statistical model doing a better job than some batch of cowboys that couldn't pass a Turing test themselves is hardly surprising.

Though they managed to ultimately extend this github brand to github copilot, that will gladly push stuff to forgejo, gitlab, etc...

Even worse, they've extended it to tooling that they pitch to developers who use git for anything under the brand affinity of 'github' (which *way* too many people already assumed git == github).

Lots of people could and did design and/or build personal computers in the 70s. Magazines published designs and sold mail order kits pior to the Apple I. There were also a bunch of pre-built home computers contemporary with the Apple I/II, and several of them were more popular.

Neither Steve was really the singular genius people like to retrospectively paint them as. Together they did good work and were in the right place at the right time with the right motivation.

May not ever 'figure it out'.

A lot of 'leadership' saw "everyone is hiring tech" in the aftermath of the pandemic and so they did, with or without any vision.

This represents a narrative consistent with shedding those people they didn't have business value for. So they end up no more broken than they were in 2019, and it provides a narrative consistent with doing things "right".

Based on some codebases I've seen...

AI slop can be bad, but has *nothing* on the closed source codebases I've seen for low quality slop.

I only once bought a new car, and this was an online sale (even back then in the 20th century!). I knew what I wanted, and no test drive would have changed my requirements. I owned this car for 120,000 miles. No complaints.

Of all the early computer start-ups, Apple is the only "started in the garage on a shoestring budget and passion to create something everyone would love" that I can recall hearing about. Were they they only ones to get started like that?

And I see so many people already trash-talking Jobs... business sense without a great product has nothing, but tech genius without business never takes off. Both are necessary! It takes a good product and a good salesman to make a successful brand. Apple was fortunate to have both, it was their recipe for success.

No, the box is an essential part of the system. In the thought experiment neither the box nor the photon has mass but both possess momentum since the photon can bounce off the walls of the box. The photon and the box, together, form a system that has mass.

You can see how systems can have mass by rearraning the mass-energy equivalence equation to solve for mass:

m = sqrt(E^2 - (pc)^2) / c

The energy and momentum of a fundamental particle are related so you can't manipulate them independently. But if you have more than one particle it's pretty easy to manipulate the momentum of the system without changing the energy, and thus make m non-zero.

Many teachers, including the pop science variety, like to appeal to your intuition. Sometimes that's okay, sometimes it just stunt's your understanding. Your idea of mass is rooted in pre-20th century physics. The end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century changed how we think about a lot of things, mass included. You're trying to take your idea of mass as an axiom and make everything else fit. It doesn't. Photons are massless. If they weren't, they would either not travel at the speed of light or have infinite energy. The "thing" that gravitates is energy and various types of energy flux, including momentum. That explains, consistently, how photons can travel at the speed of light, massless particles can interact via gravity, and adding energy to a system can increase its mass.

Energy density, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

People used to say "relativistic mass." We've realized that was a bad idea.