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.

Google xkcd extrapolate

s/best/only/

No, I remember owning a calculator watch with phone directory because I could never remember phone numbers, outside of a few I used all the time. Then I got a cellphone and now I don't need to wear a watch.

Simp harder

Would charging for access have stopped the work on Wayland?

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.

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).

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.

Shooting kids is the Number 1 reason kids die in the USA.... do those laws work ?

Oh please...this stat just is bogus.

They took the ages up past 19yrs old, I believe to 20yrs....

Legally you're adult at 18...so immediately that should be cut out of the mix, but also with ages 17-19...you're going to start counting heavily on the gang bangers who are criminals into drugs and drug wars...

Those are NOT children...they are criminal who more and more are being charged as adults.

If you took what most people consider to be actual children...1-10yrs or maybe even up to 12 yrs old....those "gun deaths" numbers plummet.

When those numbers are looked at...more kids die by car accidents.....

So please...get of the fucking high horse on children gun deaths...the REAL NUMBERS show a much different story...

And if you are not from here or don't live here....bully for you, you don't have to live with our "freedoms".....

But frankly I LOVE it here and love my country.

It seems strange to hear your rants while we still have people illegally risking death to get here.....

Look you don't have to like it. You don't have to live here in it.

And if that's your choice...fine. But otherwise it isn't your fucking business how we live here, now is it?

Why do you keep complaining about it if none of this is your problem much less none of your fucking business?