software for humans
19 points by dsh
19 points by dsh
I'll admit, I prefer this kind of list to a name-and-shame list. Sad it's short, but hopefully more on it soon. :)
Same, though I think we will be needing both.
The list here has the advantage that a commitment to not use LLMs is probably going to have a longer shelf-life than the circumstance that a project has not used LLMs yet.
- the software's authors claim that it is created without assistance from AI.
- the software cannot be proven to include AI in contrary to this claim.
There's definitely some LLM-extruded code in LibreOffice. Doing a cursory (heh) search on their Gerrit instance(1) confirms so.
Not including "AI" anti-features does not mean they won't use it for development.
I'm supportive of the goal, but the approach seems very bizarre and arbitrary.
Publish to <a linked thing that returns 404> which is presumably some social media thing, and "the author will see it eventually".
Ironically this approach sounds about as reproducible as LLM generated shit.
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be throwing slurs left and right? Especially since:
What slurs are you referring to? I don't see one, let alone any being thrown "left and right".
Eh, let's reserve "slur" for things that actually are designed to discriminate against people. This is clearly a term designed to describe dissatisfaction and annoyance, not a pejorative against a class.
I don't agree with declaring "clanker" to be a slur when it's applied to software. If the piece were calling a human a clanker, sure. But it isn't.
Saying that software is bad can't be a slur, IMO. You can't slur a set of machine instructions.
You can just say that software is bad, you don't have to involve slurs into that.
"clanker" is no more a slur than "bad" when applied to software.
Now you're saying "clanker" sounds like a slur but isn't? So why did you call it a slur?
(To be clear, I don't think it even sounds like a slur. Because you can't slur software or robots.)
I have not said that and you're reaching for some weird conclusions. You have argued that it's not a slur in context, which is what the mentioned video makes fun of and points out that context doesn't matter because it's still a slur.
I guess I didn't understand the video reference, then. Because the wikipedia link said that "clanker" refers to bad robots and software. Everything in the video was only a slur if about humans.
And you can't slur robots and software.
There's no context needed.
The definition of the term applies it to machines or programs. The linked article is for programs.
Nobody is calling a person a clanker and discriminating against them on that basis. There is no slur here. It's nonsensical to suggest that there is, unless I'm completely missing some reasoning.