CIRCLE WITH A DOT

#photography #photographie #BloomScrolling #mountains #flower

@ana linking it for reference: https://anthonymoser.github.io/writing/rhetoric/framing/kirby/2026/01/28/the-kirby-frame.html

@wojtekpow @rasterweb I won't cover the arguments against LLM-driven development since other people have already voiced their objections, but one of the weak points of the article for me is that, if LLM boosters say the truth, then instead of being secure through irrelevance, those apps will be vulnerable due to automated script kiddies, much like the LLM crawlers are hammering the open web right now.

The warnings against skimming on security also ring a bit hollow, as the promise is for normal people to develop apps, which means they are never going to bother.

@bkuhn @tito @ossguy I understand the need and do not intend to throw stones at the SFC here at all, I have diverging ethical considerations and am way too tired of it all (particularly writing non-FOSS software at work in the current LLM-crazed atmosphere) to even think about joining an oral conversation about it, in a language I am somewhat fluent but not articulate in.

I'm all for welcoming volunteers who want to do work on FOSS projects, but that means onboarding and doing actual work; if I wanted to run Claude on my code to do stuff, I don't need other people to do that, so what would be the point of recruiting volunteers ?

@ossguy @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard Yes it would be different because they would not do it, since copypasting snippets from SO is not a gratifying experience, does not have a self-reinforcing feedback loop, and usually does not build or pass tests.
SO does not excel at producing the appearance of competency, nor is it shoved down our throats at an unprecedented pace, so I both have less moral qualms about letting people do it, and less technical objections with it as it does not pretend to produce cohesive programs or do away with the need of understanding.

Not to say that copy pasting from SO is good, but LLM-driven contributions are that much lower.

@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard I do not want to read LLM output, full stop. There are people who want to me to read it. What can I compromise here?

I do not want to demonize LLM users, as some want to genuinely contribute and hope to improve the software. But their red line is that they want to use their LLM to do so, as they are (usually) "having so much fun with it doing previously impossible stuff".

The truth is that nobody wants to discuss the topic, as everyone is getting tired of this shit, which is why adding a notice stating that the project rejects any LLM-tainted contributions is probably the best to avoid wasting everyone's time.

@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber There seems to be some oversimplification happening here; I don't think people using LLMs are the enemy but as @silverwizard said by analogy (assuming I have been mentioned for the retoot, which I understand but find a bit inquisitive BTW), I do think LLMs are the perfect medium for destroying free software and free software communities (let alone the rest of the world).

It is easy to say that we should not be entrenched, but my main issue with this position is that there is no form of "meeting in the middle" that works here, apart from caving in. (continued)

@kaflurbaleen I have the same printer and I wish the cats would stop printing the test page when jumping on it

@0xabad1dea Maybe github management counts that as "two nines"'?