Linus Torvalds used LLM tools to clarify obscure assoc_array code after a bug report from Nils Ollrogge. The resulting readable functions, tested in user space, confirmed the original issue and exposed three more defects dating to the library's 2013 debut. The fixes highlight a pragmatic approach to maintaining complex legacy kernel components.
Earlier arguments of yours in other posts is that we should use open models and now you are posting things praising closed-model usage?
If you were wondering why I was saying I don’t think your pro-AI stance is good-faith, it’s exactly things like this
you clearly are covering your ears while he talks. your argument against AI is actually an argument against closed models, that’s the issue. yes, open models aren’t as powerful as closed ones currently but it’s simply a limitation of its time. so the issue is not about AI again, but about some tangential to AI.
you probably have similar issue regarding technology limits during this time such as: power/water consumption, some bogus rant about copyrights (i thought open source people were against copyright and in favour of copyleft, but ok?), usage in military shit, some superficial technophobic stance about how AI can generate images about people, etc. so please, if you can provide a single argument against AI, do so.
My earlier arguments were that we should encourage open model usage to displace closed model usage. The whole problem I’m outlining in my argument is that as long as closed models are the only game in town, that’s what people are going to use. And the way forward is to provide credible alternatives. I even gave you a concrete example of Linux displacing Windows use which you studiously ignored.
Turns out you don’t think my AI stance is in good faith due to your poor reading comprehension skills.
Yeah, this user has been showing a full-on sect-like behaviour when it comes to “AI” matters, it has been a bit ridiculous.
as always, pure projection from the libs. nothing new under the sun.
The only sect like behavior on here comes from people who think that this tech will just magically go away if they post enough ‘AI slop’ comments on a niche social media forum.
Lemmy is full of leftists who can’t go beyond the emotional bias in their responses…
pretty much
It’s like saying that people criticizing racism are stupid to think that racism will magically disappear if they talk about it enough.
You come to talk about your immoral crap, I’ll tell you to fuck off. Doesn’t matter if you don’t, it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make LLMs disappear, I’m not going to just accept your garbage just because the world is drowning in it.
It’s called having a moral stance, you should try it sometimes, after you get out of your AI psychosis.
It would indeed be pretty stupid to equate new technology with racism. The whole idea of having a moral stance against an inanimate object is the height of idiocy. I have a moral stance against the capitalist system and the way technology is applied within it, but you do you.
Ah, you must be part of the “keep politics out of computer science” crowd then.
LLMs are political, no matter how they are used. Their existence has an effect, and pretending that it is only about what usage is made of them is just another bad faith argument.
You’re just trying to shift things so that you can delude yourself into thinking that you can enjoy your comfortable use of LLMs, while still pretending to oppose capitalism and whatnot.
Selective morals are not morals.
Nope, I’m of the technology is an artifact of the social order crowd, and I understand that attacking symptoms of underlying social relations which are the root causes is the height of idiocy.
The famous “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” then.
Fun fact, it’s easier to treat the underlying cause if you also ease the symptoms. And when the cause is not immediately treatable, refusing to soothe the symptoms is the height of idiocy.
Fun fact, the AI models will continue to be developed for the same reason the US gun problem has never been solved despite the solution being obvious. When
The reality of the situation is that there is an absolutely insane amount of money being poured into ensuring this tech will continue to be developed. The investors and the companies developing it do not care about public opinion in the slightest. So, as actual empirical research shows, your approach cannot work. But since you’re in a cult you’re unable to understand that.
Meanwhile, these companies are literally telling us what they’re actually afraid of which is open models.