CIRCLE WITH A DOT

@wilbr@glitch.social @munin@infosec.exchange The core problem is that capitalist forces push us to make tradeoffs between getting things shipped and doing things the right way

But yeah, people shouldn't be able to make this class of mistake in the first place. But they do, for the same reason (in my experience) they end up using LLMs: because it solves the task with less effort, and there is some force pushing them to go for less effort over higher quality/resilience/etc.

@munin@infosec.exchange My point is that the best way to get those customers their diligence is to actually start helping people, not directing your anger at people who are also victims of the scams of the AI industry. If your objective is just to be angry, then be angry! Just make sure it's at the right people.

@munin@infosec.exchange What does that stance accomplish? If anything, this seems like a great position by which to further alienate ourselves as fringe "AI skeptics".

The reality is that the people with the greatest knowledge of how these systems work and how they were made (outside the scammers which sell them, of course) use these tools the least. If we take the time to teach people why not to use them and give them alternatives, we will actually reduce the harms. Otherwise, we will just be angry contrarians to be ignored.

@munin@infosec.exchange To be honest, I have some amount of sympathy for this behaviour. This is someone who put their trust in something they were told they could trust, and has been characterised in a way such that they believe it can reason. When they then have their expectations subverted, they query for its reasoning, not understanding that it doesn't have this. It's more sad, like trying to reach for connection and reason where there is none.

The problem here isn't overt, intentional ignorance, but people being misled and struggling with a technology that fakes connection and reasoning. Rather than being angry at them, I feel sad for them. We should invest significant effort in tech literacy so that people understand why they shouldn't trust these things, which will inherently reduce, if not totally eradicate, their reliance on this technology. Dismissing their actions as stupid or malicious in the meantime only sharpens the wedge between people who understand why these things must not be used or trusted, and those who do use and trust them.

@icing@chaos.social "willful" suggests malice, not incompetence.

And yes, I know who you are In the same way I'm sure you are annoyed by RIIR comments, I am annoyed by people holding superiority over new Rust projects that are trying to do good in the world. Hubris is part of the developer process. Given the scope of the project, 70 mostly uninteresting bugs is unsurprising, and suggesting that it is a good reason to reject this work on face is really disingenuous.

@icing@chaos.social It's easy to assume malice when incompetence is a sufficient explanation. The assumptions are being tested, and I'm sure the audit results will bring more critical eyes to the software. People want this change, and have good reason for it. There are constructive ways to address that, including, if you find the tests lacking, contributing some tests.

@icing@chaos.social I find this take really unhelpfully dismissive. The rewrite is a good thing, and will eradicate a bug class nearly entirely (one that GNU coreutils continues to have in the meantime). It will have lots of bugs, and I'm happy an audit found them (even if many of them are boring). Ubuntu should not have pushed this into production this early, but that does not invalidate the objective of the rewrite.