x1gma

If they didn't care enough to write the code, what makes you think they cared enough to review or test the code?

Contributors =/= Maintainers.

I've never told anyone how to do their activism, I've criticized the consequences of said activism, which I still haven't got answered, and the lack of objective arguments for this specific instance of activism, which I still haven't heard, except for "AI bad lol".

I've been rolling with the definition of slop that's kinda universally agreed on, that is low quality, spammy AI generated content, and I'd ask again for an example of that in vim, but since your definition is "LLM used = slop", I don't need to do that here I guess. Also, you've missed the irony of telling me to not tell people what slop is, while telling me what slop is right after.

I don't understand how you can be so dense to call that an easy problem that's just boom done. It's not about compiling and aliasing it, you can do that on probably any commit of vim. It's about the maintenance and longevity of the fork, who's gonna support it, and will it have a proper level of maintenance that will make it productively usable in the long term? It's been forked to a "pre-AI" state of vim, how is it known that it's not having LLM generated (as in LLM assisted) content already, before the official guidelines have mentioned that? If all that makes evi stand out is a strict no-ai policy, how is this gonna be checked and enforced (e.g human developer uses LLM tooling on his local machine, without disclosing it)? Who are the developers behind it, greetings from xz and similar supply chain attacks? How are upstream changes and fixes handled, since you'll use it at some point with elevated privileges or to edit sensitive files? But yeah, fuck all of that, it compiles and you can just alias it, right, so we can talk about the severe problems in the open issues - will vim script be renamed too, and we need to rename vimrc to evirc asap, and boom done.

I've said it here at some point already, screeching "AI IS BAD REEEE" is not helping the case, it's discrediting the "movement" or "activism" as a whole. AI will not leave. When the bubble bursts, people will stop shoving it everywhere, but it will stay where it can be used properly. Software engineering is something where it CAN be used properly, since whatever you're building doesn't give a flying fuck about who's been writing the code. It's either good, or it's bad. Instead of worthless decisions on principle, do better. Coach and talk with people on how to do better, how to live in a world with AI responsibly and for good. Avoid, boycott and fork the ones deciding to not do that, based on objective reasons, and build it better. That's what activism is about, using your actions to lead to change for the better, or isn't it? And I don't see how a hard fork, with all the mentioned consequences and problems, for the simple reason of vim maintainers saying "disclose AI usage" is leading to anything better just for the reason of shoveling an antislop and no-ai tag into the codeberg repository.

Of course it works fucking fine if it's a hard fork of a stable state.

What mental gymnastics? The ones you're doing right now. You have not answered a single question from my comment. And what "problem" did you solve exactly? Has there been any issue that has come up because of the acceptance of AI in vim? What kind of "slop" is actually there that makes vim problematic for you?

People vibe coding random bullshit ideas because they now can, do indeed produce slop. A bunch of highly experienced devs working on a successful project for years using tools that are at their disposal properly is not slop. You're lending your public voice to a split of the community and of the project for made up bullshit reasons based on no objective proof but claims of slop and out of principle.

I'd trust the original vim maintainers to decide what's a good or bad pull, instead of a bunch of random people who simply hard forked for literally no reason.

Wait, so because vim is allowing code written with AI we are switching to a random fork? The mental gymnastics here are insane once again. Is someone assuming that the vim maintainers are gonna do agentic requests? How is this project gonna handle upstream changes into their own main? Cherry-picking only "confirmed human-only" commits? Decisions like that out of spite, with zero thoughts and just out of principle do not help against slop. You're just adding human slop to the AI slop.

It's not about a different function providing different randomness, but providing a compatible implementation for environments not supporting the "regular" implementation.

If this screenshot is legit, I guarantee you that either the library is older and there was some weird branching for IE or it's brand new and had branching for the hot new JS runtime / cross compiling.

Supporting a metric fuckton of browsers and environments takes the same amount of shims.

The easiest way would be to set up caddy to use acme on the servers, and never care about certificates again. See https://caddyserver.com/docs/automatic-https.

If you insist on your centralized solution, which is perfectly fine imo, just place the certificates to a directory properly accessible to caddy, and make sure to keep the permissions minimal, so that the keys are only accessible by authorized users.

If the certificates are only for caddy, there's no reason to mess around in system folders.

No, I think the distinction is already made and there are words for that. Adding additional terms like "generators" or "pretend intelligence" does not help in creating clarity. In my opinion, the current definitions/classifications are enough. I get Stallman's point, and his definition of intelligence seems to be different from how I would define intelligence, which is probably the main disagreement.

I definitely would call a LLM intelligent. Even though it does not understand the context like a human could do, it is intelligent enough to create an answer that is correct. Doing this by basically pure stochastics is pretty intelligent in my books. My car's driving assistant, even if it's not fully self driving, is pretty damn intelligent and understands the situation I'm in, adapting speed, understanding signs, reacting to what other drivers do. I definitely would call that intelligent. Is it human-like intelligence? Absolutely not. But for this specific, narrow use-case it does work pretty damn good.

His main point seems to be breaking the hype, but I do not think that it will or can be achieved like that. This will not convince the tech bros or investors. People who are simply uninformed, will not understand an even more abstract concept.

In my opinion, we should educate people more on where the hype is actually coming from: NVIDIA. Personally, I hate Jensen Huang, but he's been doing a terrific job as a CEO for NVIDIA, unfortunately. They've positioned themselves as a hardware supplier and infrastructure layer for the core component for AI, and are investing/partnering widely into AI providers, hyperscalers, other component suppliers in a circle of cashflow. Any investment they do, they get back multiplied, which also boosts all other related entities. The only thing that went "10x" as promised by AI is NVIDIA stock. They are bringing capex to a whole new level currently.

And that's what we should be discussing more, instead of clinging to words. Every word that any company claims about AI should automatically be assumed to be a lie, especially for any AI claim from any hyperscaler, AI provider, hardware supplier, and especially-especially from NVIDIA. Every single claim they do directly relates to revenue. Every positive claim is revenue. Every negative word is loss. In this circle of money they are running - we're talking about thousands of billions USD. People have done way worse, for way less money.

Feel free to ask your questions, I'll gladly answer them. Before making stupid and smug claims, maybe you should've ran my post through literally any AI text detector before embarrassing yourself.

I disagree with this post and with Stallman.

LLMs are AI. What people are actually confused about is what AI is and what the difference between AI and AGI is.

There is no universal definition for AI, but multiple definitions which are mostly very similar: AI is the ability of a software system to perform tasks that typically would involve human intelligence like learning, problem solving, decision making, etc. Since the basic idea is basically that artificial intelligence imitates human intelligence, we would need a universal definition of human intelligence - which we don't have.

Since this definition is rather broad, there is an additional classification: ANI, artificial narrow intelligence, or weak AI, is an intelligence inferior to human intelligence, which operates purely rule-based and for specific, narrow use cases. This is what LLMs, self-driving cars, assistants like Siri or Alexa fall into. AGI, artificial general intelligence, or strong AI, is an intelligence equal to or comparable to human intelligence, which operates autonomously, based on its perception and knowledge. It can transfer past knowledge to new situations, and learn. It's a theoretical construct, that we have not achieved yet, and no one knows when or if we will even achieve that, and unfortunately also one of the first things people think about when AI is mentioned. ASI, artificial super intelligence, is basically an AGI but with an intelligence that is superior to a human in all aspects. It's basically the apex predator of all AI, it's better, smarter, faster in anything than a human could ever be. Even more theoretical.

Saying LLMs are not AI is plain wrong, and if our goal is a realistic, proper way of working with AI, we shouldn't be doing the same as the tech bros.

It is not a lie but a widely accepted and agreed on definition that precedes LLMs by years, and had been created by people way smarter then you and I combined, and who have spent more time in AI research than most people here.

An LLM is an ANI (artificial narrow intelligence), and any ANI is an AI, the broader term for any artificial intelligence. An ANI operates not on intelligence as a human intelligence, its intelligence is a set of rules. A search engine algorithm is a set of rules. Your phone's keyboard is a set of rules. T9 typing on your old Nokia is a set of rules and can be classified as an ANI. An LLM has rules how it spits out the next token.

There is no universal definition of AI, because we would need to have a universal definition of human intelligence for that first. Since there is no single universal definition, it's free for you to disagree on that definition. But calling it disinformation, that no computer program is intelligent, or a lie is simply wrong.

In all honesty, the constant rambling against any service provider when something goes wrong is tiring. as. fuck.

"I'm not using anything, I'm self-hosting everything and no cloudflare can take ME down!" - hot stuff buddy, let's talk again when at some point you'll have something interesting and get hugged to death. Or when something of your diy self hosted stack breaks or gets taken down by an attack.

"I'm not using (big company name) but (small startup name), and I'm not having any issues!" - wow, great, obviously the goal of the company is to stay as small as they are and supply your service. Let's talk again too, when at some point your friendly startup gets sold, or grows more. Oh btw, smaller company usually also means less resources.

"That's all because they are using centralized services, we need to federate everything to not have a single point of failure" - federation alone won't help if the centralized service has several magnitudes of resources more. Any single cloudflare exit node can probably handle several times the load of the fediverse. We've seen lemmy instances go down all the same, and this will happen with any infrastructure.

I'm not supporting big companies having that much market share and the amount of control over the Internet as a whole that they have. But, have at least some respect from a technical standpoint for the things they've built. I'd say way over 80% here haven't seen infrastructure, traffic and software on a scale that's even remotely close to the big players, but are waffling about how this or that is better and how those problems should be solved and handled. Sit the fuck down.

No matter how well reasoned, allegedly fit for purpose or how much something pretends to be it, we shouldn't be trusting those promises, especially not from people we don't know. That does not end well neither for the free candy van nor for cybersecurity. Trust like that has been responsible for a lot of attacks over varying vectors and for projects going wrong.