| ▲ | sscaryterry a day ago |
| This. So many assumptions. If you disclose you used an LLM, it is immediately assumed all of it is done by an LLM. If there is a bug, its because you are a lazy piece of shit, not because humans make mistakes, and you missed it. It is branded slop. We're living in interesting times, socially, OSS will die because of this. Contributors are dwindling, and will continue to do so. If you want to play in your sandbox, please do. Don't open-source, keep it to yourself. |
|
| ▲ | mcculley a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > OSS will die because of this OSS will not die. |
|
| ▲ | gspr a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think you're wrong. And I think that FOSS is our last best hope to keep software under the control of the individual. The sloppers are diving head-first into a world where not knowing how a basic idea translates to code is embraced. This is not true of every slopper, but it is true of enough that sloppers are a threat. |
| |
| ▲ | sscaryterry a day ago | parent [-] | | I hear you, but again there are a lot of assumptions in this statement: "sloppers are diving head-first into a world where not knowing". The problem is you've redefined LLM-coding as slopping. "This is not true of every slopper". | | |
| ▲ | lsaferite a day ago | parent [-] | | I find your comment here interesting. The parent never called out LLM-coding, they said "sloppers". If we take that choice of word as deliberate, it stands to reason there's a distinction there between "sloppers" and LLM assisted coding in general. You quoting "This is not true of every slopper" as proof they are equating the two seems like a weakly defended assertion. It's entirely possible there are 3 broad classes of LLM users in the parent's explicit and implicit beliefs. The thing is, you don't know any more than I know. You are attributing a held belief to someone that you inferred from incomplete information. That being said, if you based your assertion on external, unreferenced knowledge, then you could potentially know they hold that belief. I'd venture to say that a large number of developers are using LLM tooling at this point. Not all of those developers are out there generating massive, poorly engineered PRs and wasting project maintainer time. For me there are at least those 3 broad categories of user of LLMs for software development, maybe more if I sat and thought about it for a while. | | |
| ▲ | sscaryterry a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The article is about LLM code. I’m sure you can condense the many lines into less than 5 lines. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. | | |
| ▲ | lsaferite 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | If reading 1 and a half paragraphs is too much, then I guess we shouldn't try to communicate. | | |
| ▲ | sscaryterry 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | It isn’t what I said. I’d rather communicate with people who do not use 3 words where 1 would do. | | |
| ▲ | gspr 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | This conversation does not exist primarily for your benefit though. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gspr 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed. I wouldn't call everyone who uses LLMs to generate code a slopper. But I'm afraid that there are so many sloppers that they pose a real danger to the ecosystem, especially considering the amount of code they generate. A volunteer project has limited resources, and I can totally understand why it doesn't wanna use those to separate the wheat from enormous amounts of chaff. If that's the case, an outright ban might be a smart move. Note that a ban on LLM-generated code is not a prohibition on other forms of LLM-based assistance. Those other forms don't incur a direct burden on the maintainers. |
|
|
|
