Spyke

Replies

signal

Comment on

Why do ppl think I do drugs for using signal

Becuase 3/4 people are r-worded and so you need to make at least 7 friends to have a better chance of finding someone who also uses drugs.

In all seriousness though it's essentially laziness at its core. Switching to signal incurs a debt where you have to consider whether to continue using all of the other platforms where your privacy is not respected. This is an especially shit-uphill task today and as long as the majority that don't care about privacy can continue to live in relative safety, it's easier to dump on the guy that even hints at spending a metric shitton of effort on a task where your skill level is about on par with someone having just learned not to eat their boogers in public.

linux

Comment on

Trapped on Linux

Reply in thread

every single published study shows that AI makes developers worse.

Can't thank you enough for this list!!! I asked anti AI folks and the best I got was a study on AI assisted essay writing with 8 people per control group. The rest were insults, mockery, shifting goalposts, so naturally, as someone who just arrived at the fence, I found myself siding with the less troll-ey side. My guess is this is more an issue of "worse than an enemy is an incompetent ally" because any single study in your list would have done it for me.

This study has some positives on AI use in coding, but I'd exercise caution due to the tabloid-ey nature of using the term "AI-slop" everywhere in a study that's supposed to be unbiased.

linux

Comment on

Red Hat Funded a Report That Estimates 25% of PRs Are AI Slop

Reply in thread

you’ll see that “slop” in the survey does not refer to AI-driven PRs in general, but to specifically low-quality AI-generated PRs.

This part is actually unclear. The question posed to survey participants that allowed researchers to determine a PR was "AI slop" is left out of the report. And this line under the chart showing "25% slop etc." is troubling:

Average estimated percentage of incoming PRs that are low-quality and/or AI-generated

How this particular question was framed is of critical importance here and without it, it's easy to assume that all reported AI use was broadly categorized as "slop"

Sadly I could not find a way to access the full list of questions used in the survey to confirm this.

linux

Comment on

Red Hat Funded a Report That Estimates 25% of PRs Are AI Slop

Reply in thread

page 9’s wording does state that it is maintainer-estimated, and specifies the terms “low-quality” and “slop” as the qualifier for the 25% figure

I'm not seeing it. This is the sole relevant statement on pg 9 where they simply define AI slop in a general way that avoids tying it in with their measurements:

“AI slop” are low quality AI-generated contributions that are unlikely to be worth the review time they demand.

In addition to the explicit 'and/or general AI use' statement, there are several red flags here that make me think this is a low quality study to be taken with salt. Or maybe I'm cynical and using the term 'slop' to push a research study is both unusual and suspect.

linux

Comment on

Red Hat Funded a Report That Estimates 25% of PRs Are AI Slop

Reply in thread

It looks like it was more of a survey and afaict, participants weren't given an opportunity to distinguish between "AI slop" and high quality AI assisted contributions (so were all AI contributions reported as "slop"?!)

To answer your other questions, this is the relevant part:

Across the board, genAI reduces estimated task time across all six measured activities in the pooled sample, with the largest gains in code authoring (−52%) and code review & feedback (−44%), and smaller but still meaningful reductions in technical discussion (−20%) and discussion on proposals (−19%)

Productivity gains are most often reinvested in addressing technical debt [66%], adding new features [63%], and learning/upskilling [58%] ... genAI productivity is invested right back into OSS projects. In other words, genAI is not shrinking the overall OSS workload so much as reallocating it toward highervalue and longer-deferred work, from debt paydown to skill-building.

It's not all clear weather and blue skies though. My interpretation of the findings is that there definitely are challenges to address, but also that those that take the effort to address and integrate AI usage see the most in terms of net positives.

You can download the full report here.

privacy

Comment on

DHS Said They Searched Man Who Wiped GrapheneOS Phone for Child Abuse Material. They Lied

Reply in thread

This sounds overly optimistic bordering on delusional. There are countless examples of courts siding with authorities based on nothing but their say so and this case is a perfect candidate to 'make an example' out of someone uncooperative with said authorities. It's easy to discount the stress of having a potential 5 year term hanging over you when you're not on the receiving end of it.

Unless you're deliberately looking to fight the fight (unlike the majority of people who find themselves in this situation), the plausible deniability provided by a more discrete wipe would keep both your data and you personally safe.

Comment on

Should /c/opensource allow AI / slop-coded project posts, or remove them?

I've recently been pondering the future impact of AI on coding, while trying to filter out the current noise surrounding the issue (since all it does is muddy the waters). There's a lot of amateurish supposition to follow, but since you appear to be getting fewer thought out responses than "AI-bad-kill", take it with a pinch of salt.

There was a recent article on the open source software that props up the internet - (paraphrasing here) one of these repositories had (pre-AI) a user called Jin Yue or Jin Yin who made hundreds of useful pull requests, gained the trust of the repo maintainer and was eventually given admin privileges, only to surrepticiously merge malicious code when no one was looking (eventually discovered ~a month after the fact). I imagine that (likely) state-sponsored attempts like these will make more use of AI in the future for quicker turnaround, and that maintainers will also eventually use AI to quickly audit submitted code for security flaws.

As far as open source software channels are concerned, I imagine there will be a decent amount of low effort malicious software that makes heavy use of AI, submitted to these channels. In such an environment, whether or not users are permitted to candidly disclose AI usage without reprisal will likely make a huge difference, since honest disclosure would invite security-minded people to audit fault-prone AI-assisted code - something that malware distributers will try to avoid at all costs (thereby allowing a distinction that can be leveraged to form between the two).

Just my two cents.

linux

Comment on

Linux kernel devs drop obligatory confession of AI tool usage

Reply in thread

You know who else isn’t shying away from the new tools? Trump and his cronies.

Hard to think of a poorer argument against AI use.

In line with the rest of the comments here so far where there's lots of anti AI rage but little to no coherent arguments that specify how Linus using AI to code is a bad thing. No specifics, lots of vague beating around the bush, highly emotive language.

linux

Comment on

Linus Torvalds shares his thoughts on Anti-AI coding rules

Reply in thread

Vague criticisms, fallacious reasoning, highly emotive language, little response to attempts at discussion (though some might engage in disingenuous discussions of shifting goalposts here and there to discourage particularly vocal engagees from future participation). So I'd say that Linus is just the latest convenient scapegoat in an Anti-AI 'trend' that will have little impact on the rate of AI adoption in the long run.

Sucks that I waited until now to try to form a measured opinion on AI because now all the discussions on the internet are hot garbage.

Comment on

Priestly coders are more annoying than vibe coders

Reply in thread

asking if he used AI on the project is a valid question

Maybe in some scenarios, but reducing years of his work to "how vibey is your code?" with no inquiry whatsoever on the finer technical aspects of his work is telling. They don't care. They're more interested in "Are you on my side of the AI wars?", forcing the issue, because that's the only 'contribution' they can make to the discussion.

privacy

Comment on

Passkeys are a trap. Do not use them

Reply in thread

Enforcing what? It's up to your email service to adopt the change. The way it currently works was probably okay for the early days of the internet when people had just started using emails, but now that so much private and sensitive financial information passes through your email account, it makes little sense that the same credential you use to login to your email account (email id) is also what you must use when some random website forces you to register in order to access it, just so they can send you massive volumes of unsolicited spam.

Certainly a simpler change with more potential to do good relative to the ease of enforcing a convoluted passkey-slash-usb-slash-save-this-file-somewhere-safe implementation

privacy

Comment on

Passkeys are a trap. Do not use them

Reply in thread

Amazon/whatever login:

Email login:

  • username: chlamidiyasux
  • password: hunter3

There. You've solved 90% of online fraud that begins with website(s) leaking your credentials and someone combining leaks to gain access to everything in your life via your email (including bank, socials, porn habits, whatever).