Krssst

There are already OSes that include LLM code (such as Linux). It's fine to have a few that don't.

Wearing a mask is not "not living life to the fullest".

Being severely impaired by long COVID (still a 1~5% risk in my understanding) is.

Many SEs do seem to be on board with various forms of LLM use.

Many don't too, just saying there's not really a consensus across all software engineers.

The article does state clearly first that it was first drafted with AI, I appreciate the author's honesty. I wish all AI-assisted articles would do the same.

Also, LSP can turn Sublime Text into almost an IDE (but much more performant).

> crazy anti-LLM policies

Weird how justified reasonable policies get the "crazy" label.

Not so sure, if the LLM has been overfitted and can just throw back something equivalent to the original code, then it's no different from a human having seen the code and writing something similar afterwards.

On another hand, I'd be curious about Microsoft's reaction if somebody let an agent write a "perfect" Windows emulator/compatibility layer eating away at Windows's market share (assuming that's possible; since it does not exist it's probably not currently). Would not do much for kernel anti-cheats but would help for productivity software. Microsoft could either choose to say this is not a white box implementation and take down the project but it would hurt anything LLM-related since all LLM-based projects could be targeted, or let it live and eat away at Windows (I suspect they'd choose the latter because it's the shiny new thing and would probably not hurt Windows that much).

I wonder what Windows would be like if it was split off Microsoft. Technically it has far sufficient revenue to keep being maintained and updated well, but I guess the quest for ever more revenue would still lead to it becoming more and more enshittified.

I wonder what it would become if it was split off Microsoft and given to two competing companies.

Is it? Pangram disagrees and human-made photos imply at least some human effort.

Ah, sorry, I was only replying to the above comment but did not mean to imply that the tutorial might be AI-written; it very much looks human-written and generally a nice read :-)

I don't want to read LLM written text (EDIT: just replying to parent comment, not implying at all that the tutorial might be written that way; it definitely does not look like it). It would be nice if people could just disclose when they used LLMs for their writing and how, then people who care can skip and people who don't can read. Of course this would have to come with not shaming the people who disclose actual use of LLM, otherwise we're back to square one.

Sure, my point is that it would not have been enough to divert climate change, though it would have probably bought a few years/decade and allowed public discourse to move above "nuclear vs wind power" while burning more and more coal, and start discussing other problems. (on another hand, everything that public discourse touches gets politicized to stupidity so I'm not sure if I'd rather have the public choose how to decarbonize concrete production or some magical alternative that does not involve the general public talking about it).

Thank you for creating it!