Thanks for making my point for me there bro

I'm going to go ahead and assume bad faith on your part, because otherwise you're very stupid. But nobody in your potential audience is stupid enough to believe there aren't lasting effects to being bombed to shit.

I take your point about this being before the dawn of ubiquitous tech companies, but what kind of chilling effect did the Bell monopoly have?

Do you think about me when you're jerking off, too? I know you do.

It would take an AI to not get bored trying to construct working configs for SElinux

Perhaps you did not buy a Tesla. They are probably the most service-hostile vehicle ever sold in the US. Not sure about the UK, I haven't heard stories (horror or otherwise) about service for Chinese EVs yet. They would have to try really hard to be worse than Tesla, though.

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?