Ubuntu installs snap version of Firefox by default which for me had issues accessing files on my home folder so downloading files was weird. After installing normal version from Mozilla everything worked fine until during an update Ubuntu would switch back to snap version without asking. If I wanted my OS to do things behind my back I would just use Windows.

Move out and move in with your gf. Moving the gf in could work out fine or could be a disaster. I wouldn’t risk it.

No. Let’s wait for someone who knows what they are talking about.

Are you Linux kernel contributor?

Ok, so you’re suggesting that people are submitting kernel patches that somehow modify the architecture of the kernel/it’s components, that the new architecture is very complex and hard to analyze, that the those architectural changes are part of roadmap and are not rejected right away and that those big, complex architectural level patches are submitted with high frequency. Somehow I doubt all of it.

I think the slop patches are small fixes suggested by some AI code analysis tools, that architectural and complex changes are part of well defined roadmap and don’t come out of nowhere and that code that doesn’t follow conventions is easily spotted and rejected. The linked article talks only about marking the code as AI generated (IMHO useless but harmless) and increasing volume of AI slop patches. The idea that maintainers spend time analyzing complex LLM generated code submitted by random amateurs looking for possible architectural bugs sounds like a fantasy to me.

Shortly after pandemic I was on a couple of flights where they would make people leave in 5 row groups starting from the front. I saw one or two flights where people actually understood the instructions and everyone just stayed seated waiting for their turn. Then 5 rows would get up and leave. Then the next 5. It went very smoothly. I didn’t time it but it looked faster than the usual way.

The issue is that it’s easy for AI generated code to be subtly wrong in ways that are not immediately obvious to a human.

Same with human generated code. AI bug are not magically more creative than human bugs. If the code is not readable/doesn’t follow conventions you reject it regardless of what generated it.

The other problem is, of course, you can block someone submitting AI slop but there’s a lot of people in the world. If there’s a barrage of AI slop patches from lots of different people it’s going to be a real problem for the maintainers.

You don’t need official policy to reject a barrage of AI slop patches. If you receive to many patches to process you change the submission process. It doesn’t matter if the patches are AI slop or not.

Spamming maintainers is obviously bad but saying that anything AI generated in the kernel is a problem in itself is bullshit.

I think climate change mitigation can be the next scam after AI. Once AI bubble bursts they will start looking for new investments and I think climate change is ready to start generating profits. People are desperate enough to start investing money in things that will limit effect of climate change. Who will profit? Corporation that will work on those projects. Anything space related (solar panels in space, geoengineering) will require Space X/Blue Origin. Google, Microsoft and Amazon are already invested in nuclear fusion and modular reactors. Tesla is an energy provider. Any CO2 sequestration projects will require new startups, obviously backed by the same corporations. My guess is very soon we will see governments paying those companies to solve the problem they created. Even more money will be pumped to the 1%. It went form “climate change isn’t real”, to “climate change isn’t caused by humans”, to “it is caused by humans but nothing can be done about it”. Next step will be “we can fix it if you pay us”.

I guess the policy is that the code is reviewed. What does it matter if it was AI generated or not? If someone submits bullshit AI generated code he will be ignored in the future.

I’m not denying any of this. I just don’t like it when people use this as an argument not o use some projects. So the devs are not great at one-to-one communication? Ok, is the documentation good? Is the code clear? Are the bugs fixed in a timely manner? Are support tickets answered? If yes then I don’t care how nice they are. I assume that I will have to figure it out by myself and if there’s someone to ask that’s just a nice bonus. At the same time I see a lot of people that expect others to pretty much assist them on every step and complain when devs don’t do it. It’s just weird.

Yeah but I’m pretty sure reading AI news stories will not give me psychosis.

A community that ridicules people asking questions or responds with “just read the source code” might as well just continue believing in “self-documenting” code.

From my time on discord I think what open source projects need to accommodate some users are full time HR-therapist-personal tutor type positions. People will show up to channels about development tools, ask the most insane questions (“Guys, how do yo build an operating system and/or browser?”) and expect immediate answers. Anything other then the most apologetic, calculated, professional response is treated like a personal attack and used to denounce the entire project. I’m constantly amazed by the patience of some of the contributors (that do it for free BTW) and the concept of judging project by the PR skills of its developers still seams bizarre to me. For me the important thing was always the quality of documentation and code, not how nice the devs are to me. But hey, I guess I’m old and I didn’t learn everything I know from ChatGPT.

Fortunately AI is not big enough part of my life to care about this one way or another. It definitely has it’s uses but I never used as anything other than data transformation and as a search engine alternative. I don’t know what kind of people confuse AI with a companion and have sincere conversations with it, I don’t know how to help them and I don’t care how this will impact the AI industry.

Unfortunately It came from external provider. I like Iberia.

Is it illegal to own a sedan there?

System vs Toy?

Depends what SciFi we’re talking about. “2001: A Space Odyssey” plays like a total fairly tale now but I would say it was technically achievable to have lunar base in 2001 (but not going to Jupiter if I remember the plot correctly). Mars trilogy by Robinson starts in 2035 if I remember correctly and initial mission was based on cheap launch system to orbit. I think this was also feasible with sustained investment. A lot of other SciFi is based on FTL travel, AI or hibernation which we cannot place on some tech roadmap so we cannot say what does and doesn’t “lead” to it.

Plenty of things could have been done with proper investment even before going to Mars. Reusable rockets, cheaper launch systems, more flights to the moon, moon bases, space stations. Yes, Mars is difficult but it would be easier with well established presence in the orbit and on the moon. All of this happened way too late (or never) because no one wanted to invest in it.

It is. It’s about people fighting a war in space. Saying that it happened “long time ago” in a different galaxy or in alternative reality doesn’t make it a historical drama.