It’s still AI, it’s just more like a standard language server approach. Based on the article they don’t seem willing to learn how existing tools work (oof, reading documentation? Nothx).
Why aren’t they streaming the text changes and rendering them them client side?
Ah, my mistake. I thought you were just dumb and angry, didn’t realize you were a troll.
Yeah that’s fair
I think if you view the work you’re doing as working for free you’ve already lost the plot a bit. I mean people can do stuff for different reasons but it’d be like a die hard capitalist working to make buses free. It’s just weird.
I agree in general but I don’t read the message you’re responding to as being a particularly victim-oriented narrative. It’s the internet, if someone wants to do some light trolling of people who kind of suck and it helps keep them working on a project great. It’s not like it’s the most positive thing in the world, but neither is writing an incomprehensible bug report because you followed some tutorial online and think you know how to use a computer.
Try reading my message again. I think you’ll find yours doesn’t make much sense. If you still think yours makes sense, feel free to not tell me so.
Aren’t most American conservatives these days Russian agents regardless of if they’ve ever set foot in Russia?
No, it means doing a thing in the highest quality way. If you were taught quality is proportional to effort, you were taught poorly in my opinion.
Who said pull requests? That isn’t the topic of this thread.
Over and over again this thread’s ai hate brigade seems to want to apply some bad experience you had at work to this completely different scenario. It’s not the same. Sorry, but I have zero interest in being your therapist and you’re not going to convince me by drumming up bad examples.
So we agree, it’s almost always the case that the original author is the one fixing the code?
Right that was about the rabid responses from people, not the actual topic of the thread, and if anything I was commenting on others freaking the fuck out. Some of the responses are so full of hate they are just incomprehensible. I was excited to see a response that actually made any sense.
Lol it’s been a few days since I looked at the thread vs the inbox. There’s a comment near the top at +75 which is saying basically the same thing as my own at -55. So yeah, I’m sticking with rabid hate as the right description for the response I got.
I’m only responding to this thread, yes, not the vast irreparable harm llms are doing to society and the world. Those are different arguments and I don’t see any coupling between them at all.
I say ban users who submit code that causes problems. If that’s mostly AI shit, fine, but I’d be shocked if humans didn’t also submit trash of a different sort. You ask how can they realistically determine that…isn’t that literally what this entire thread is about? I don’t think “using AI” is a criteria for anything. Their actual, real problem is with bad code they have to deal with, so why is “it uses AI 😭” the metric rather than “bad code”? Your entire argument seems circular to me.
Well that’s an assertion they are claiming, maybe. I see people on lemmy claim that all of the time about people who use LLM tools but thinking a thing doesn’t make it fact.
Edit: I just reread the blog and actually see zero mention of that claim. So I’m not sure where you’re reading that I’m not seeing.
That’s cool, but why? I tend to use longer variable names that are mostly self-explanatory because, well, intellisense exists so I don’t really need to make them short.
Yes, it says there was an unnecessary try/catch, that’s pretty weak if that’s the only reason.
Can you point to the freak-out? How do you define freak out?
I’m calm, but since you need to hear it: nobody has ever in the history of the human race received the command to “calm down” and had it make them calmer. So chill out broski.
Have people died to desktop extensions?
Cause that’s the topic here.
You’re fighting a holy war against all AI, dune style.
I’m saying this is a super low risk environment where the implications appear to be extra try/catch blocks the code reviewers don’t like – not even incorrect functionality.
Anything that starts with a 10 according to the very first sentence in the article.
As a proud owner of a 10xx I can tell you I bought it in 2016 and I think it was about a year old at that point.