swlabr

joined 2 years ago
[–] swlabr@awful.systems 4 points 7 hours ago

Thinking that debates are the ultimate decider of who is right or wrong is like, twelve year old shit. Hence the internet debate industrial complex

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 1 points 8 hours ago

I’ve subscribed, it scratches the itch between waiting for episodes of if books could kill!

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 7 points 19 hours ago

Yes! It also highlights how willing the administration is to clamp down on even non-violence.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 10 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

realising that preaching nonviolence is actually fascist propaganda is one of those consequences of getting radicalised/deprogramming from being a liberal. You can’t liberate the camps with a sit-in, for example.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 5 points 1 day ago

Unfortunately, the terms "code generation" and "automatic code generation" are too broad to make any sort of value judgment about their constituents. And I think evaluating software in terms of good or bad engineering is very context-dependent.

To speak to the ideas that have been brought up:

"making the same or similar changes at some massive scale [...] suggest[s] that you could save time, energy and mental effort by deduplicating somewhere"

So there are many examples of this in real code bases, ranging everywhere from simple to complex changes.

  • Simple: changing variable names and documentation strings to be gender neutral (e.g. his/hers -> their) or have non-loaded terms (black/white list -> block/allow list). Not really something you'd bother to try and deduplicate, but definitely something you'd change on a mass scale with a "code generation tool". In this case, the code-generation tool is likely just a script that performs text replacement.
  • Less simple: upgrading from a deprecated API (e.g. going from add_one_to(target) to add_to(target, addend)). Anyone should try to de-dupe where they can, but at the end of the day, they'll probably have some un-generalisable API calls that still can be upgraded automatically. You'll also have calls that need to be upgraded by hand.

Giving a complex example here is... difficult. Anyway, I hope I've been able to illustrate that sometimes you have to use "code generation" because it's the right tool for the job.

"My understanding was you build a thing that takes some config and poops out code that does certain behaviour."

This hypothetical is a few degrees too abstract. This describes a compiler, for example, where the "config" is source code and "code that does certain behaviour" is the resulting machine code. Yes, you can directly write machine code, but at that point, you probably aren't doing software engineering at all.

I know that you probably don't mean a compiler. But unfortunately, it's compilers all the way down. Software is just layers upon layers of abstraction.

Here's an example: a web page. (NB I am not a web dev and will get details wrong here) You can write html and javascript by hand, but most of the time you don't do that. Instead, you rely on a web framework and templates to generate the html/javascript for you. I feel like that fits the config concept you're describing. In this case, the templates and framework (and common css between pages) double as de-duplication.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 5 points 2 days ago

I only use software named after words that aren’t made up. That is, I don’t use software. I post here by waving copper wire at telephone poles to bit bash my way through the tubes.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 4 points 2 days ago

It would be even better if it were . Unless we were to retcon throat as a classical element. I would not say no to that

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

oh someone made a browser from scratch? tight

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 7 points 3 days ago

Chromefox: the Sonichu of FOSS

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (7 children)

The short answer is no. Outside of this context, I'd say the idea of "code modifications algorithmically at scale" is the intersection of code generation and code analysis, all of which are integral parts of modern development. That being said, using LLMs to perform large scale refactors is stupid.

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 12 points 3 days ago (12 children)

BRB starting my new browser named ThroatGoat

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 26 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Q: what kind of algorithms does an AI produce

A: the bubble sort

 

Thought this essay had some interesting things to say. It speaks directly to the existence of tech takes overall, specifically those coming from the “oligarch-intellectuals”. Tried to quote some things to give an overview:

There is a certain disorienting thrill in witnessing, over the past few years, the profusion of bold, often baffling, occasionally horrifying ideas pouring from the ranks of America’s tech elite.

To write off these founders and executives as mere showmen—more “public offering” than “public intellectual”—would be a misreading. For one, they manufacture ideas with assembly-line efficiency: their blog posts, podcasts, and Substacks arrive with the subtlety of freight trains. And their “hot takes,” despite vulgar packaging, are often grounded in distinct philosophical traditions. Thus, what appears as intellectual fast food – the ultra-processed thought-nuggets deep fried in venture capital – often conceals wholesome ingredients sourced from a gourmet pantry of quite some sophistication.

Today, it’s increasingly clear that it’s the tech oligarchs — not their algorithmically-steered platforms—who present the greater danger. Their arsenal combines three deadly implements: plutocratic gravity (fortunes so vast they distort reality’s basic physics), oracular authority (their technological visions treated as inevitable prophecy), and platform sovereignty (ownership of the digital intersections where society’s conversation unfolds). Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now X), Andreessen’s strategic investments into Substack, Peter Thiel’s courting of Rumble, the conservative YouTube: they’ve colonized both the medium and the message, the system and the lifeworld.

E: this was linked closer to its original publish date here

 

Peep the signatories lol.

Edit: based on some of the messages left, I think many, if not most, of these signatories are just generally opposed to AI usage (good) rather than the basilisk of it all. But yeah, there’s some good names in this.

 

Hi folks, another shitty story from the slop-pocalypse ((AI-)slopalypse?).

Archive link

Article from billboard, archive

NB: I think this story is bullshit. I imagine some parts are true, but there's no concrete source given for the "$3 million" figure. So it's my speculation that this story is hype cooked up by Suno (the AI company enabling this all) and thrown at publishers for an easy headline. Also the human behind this has their name spelled differently in the two articles, so clearly some quality journalism is happening.

 

originally posted to the stubsack but it makes more sense as a top level post.

 

(Archive)

Tickled pink that BI has decided to platform the AI safety chuds. OFC, the more probable reason of “more dosh” gets mentioned, but most of the article is about how Anthropic is more receptive to addressing AI safety and alignment.

 

Burns said the driving force behind the Runway deal was to allow filmmakers to “make movies and television shows we’d otherwise never make. We can’t make it for $100 million, but we’d make it for $50 million because of AI… We’re banging around the art of the possible. Let’s try some stuff, see what sticks.”

read: "I huffed my own farts and passed out. This gave me a dream where we made a film via promptfondling. I decided that I'll make a press release with made up numbers based on that dream."

As reported by New York Magazine: “With a library as large as Lionsgate’s, they could use Runway to repackage and resell what the studio already owned, adjusting tone, format and rating to generate a softer cut for a younger audience or convert a live-action film into a cartoon.”

read: "There's no need to do requels like disney does. The serfs will gobble the slop and they'll like it. After all, why risk creating new jobs or any creative output when we could just melt the ice caps instead?"

As for another example of how the studio can use AI, Burns said to consider this scenario: “We have this movie we’re trying to decide whether to green-light. There’s a 10-second shot — 10,000 soldiers on a hillside with a bunch of horses in a snowstorm.” Using Runaway’s AI technology, the studio can avoid a pricy film shoot that would cost millions and take a few days and use AI to create the shot for about $10,000.

read: "Here's a bottle of my farts. Smell it. Feeling dizzy? Good. Now imagine a scenario where you're looking at your bank account, and instead of number go down, number go up. Isn't that nice? Have another whiff."

 

Take that, Saltman! Bet you never thought it was possible!

28
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by swlabr@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems
 

Original Title: Elizabeth Holmes’s Partner Has a New Blood-Testing Start-Up

Billy Evans has two children with the Theranos founder, who is in prison for fraud. He’s now trying to raise money for a testing company that promises “human health optimization.”

Original link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/10/business/elizabeth-holmes-partner-blood-testing-startup.html

 

Original NYT title: Billionaire Airbnb Co-Founder Is Said to Take Role in Musk’s Government Initiative

 

Original link

OFC if there were any real sense or justice in the world, LLMs would be banned outright.

view more: next ›