khaelenmore

And LLM "summarizes" the tool output as a completely unrelated and at times self-contradicting text.

If there are deterministic tools involved - just return their output as is. It's usually quite readable if needs a bit of adjusting

The primary danger of "AI" lies in the extent to which it has managed to convince people of it's capability to think and reason.

A lot of people clearly have no idea that they are essentially speaking with a glorified randomizer, rather than someone understanding the question.

This is bound to eventually lead to a disaster when someone deluded into trusting the "AI" does some stupidity it suggests without passing it through any reality check.

This title is a perfect illustration of how misleading titles can be. While if you read the article, you see that

> The GCC maintainers are free to accept legally insignificant contributions generated by an LLM

Not even assisted by LLM (which is already bad), but purely vibe-coded (catastrophic, for a compiler. For THE compiler that builds your whole os).

They only forbid what they name "legally significant". Which means that small scale contributions may still be produced by slop-machines. It's still possible to miss a bad line in this amount of code (15 lines they say).

They also allow ruining test cases by slop contributions:

> accept legally significant test cases that are generated by an LLM.

It's extremely disturbing to see literally all foundational projects succumbing to the slop-monster. It's only a matter of time now until the critical mass of hard to detect bugs accumulate in the project, making gcc completely unusable for any practical purpose. What's worse - those will be subtle bugs The kind you get from having a defective RAM chip, somewhere in the upper addresses. And if we can't trust the compiler, we can't trust anything compiled with it.

Can we ever trust a compiler written by a slop-machine? While "legally insignificant" is small enough to not let too much unwanted behaviour pass the review, it's still a possibility. Human reviews are not perfect and "ai" is good enough at writing code that seems fine (while not being actually fine). The worst thing is that if compiler generates an unwanted instruction somewhere, it will affect everything compiled with this compiler. And gcc is everywhere. Although I doubt it will be anything other than occasional illegal instructions, so...

In fiction there is usually an assumption that AI/Robot/Machine character is sentient. It may be different from human, but it is thinking, learning, feeling, and creating.

Real "AI" we have is nothing like this. It's just predictive model, trying to find (most) probable match for your input. Essentially a very complex randomizer. It does neither think, nor learn, nor feel. It does not even react, just predicts a reaction.

That's the difference. If we could really have a thinking machine, things would be different. But all we have is a massive scam.

You are missing a very important thing here. AI-written slop cannot be "genuinely useful". It's always a buggy mess that no sane person would ever run on their machine (especially old and rare one). When building a tool yourself you're putting your knowledge and expertise into it. These are the things that create trust and that make your tool inherently better than whatever vibecoded slop you can think of.

"higher quality output" and "ai" in a single sentence sound like a joke. Let me rephrase it as "we'll feed you the slop we make because we can and because we think most of you won't even look"

It's an expected consequence of using slop-generating service to write the code for you. Eventually issues slip through and pile up, leading to all kinds of issues including leaks.

That's all you need to know about DRM - when "pirates" bypass it, paying users are taking the hit.

And I'm not speaking about cost of implementing a technology to actively make the product worse.

Yes. This will make imaginary wealth not viable. And then real wealth can be taxed

That's where my rule "don't pay for anything digital unless you get the DRM-free files" comes from.

And with this ugly hole in the screen again. They could have put it in the very center of the screen at least, to make it even more annoying

For me it's not pixels in total, but pixels per inch. Why? Because like on a larger desk I can put more stuff, on a larger screen I can do the same. And yes, 96 or maybe even 72 dpi is pretty much enough. And yes, I love large screens: a 43-inch 4k monitor displays lets me see a few pages of docs, three+ code files at the same time, and have a place for a chat with a colleague or friend at the same time. Would I buy a smaller 4k monitor? Nah, no way. Would I play games/watch movies in 4k? Nah, I most of the time play in a window, or on a second 19 inch 5:4 monitor because the screen is too large. And yes, I'm very sad because of lack of laptop options with reasonable screen resolution, yet high end hardware. And yes, for a small screen I pick lower resolution whenever I can.