@Bazoogle@lemmy.world
member since 24 Jun 2023 02:05
comments
- on Ban AI Slop? in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 2d ago
-
on Ban AI Slop? in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 3d ago
- someone with zero experience using AI to blindly create something barely functional, feeding in errors until it gets a working version. No checking for vulnerabilities, testing, error catching, no thought on architecture or scalability.
- someone carefully using AI in a controlled manner to create open source software. They spend days making sure that is reliable, scalable, secure, and that the project is quality.
You believe these two are them same? That both are equal slop? Quite frankly, I don’t care if an AI made most of the code for an open source project as long as it is made well, and allows me to get away from awful proprietary alternatives. If the output of an AI is distinguishable from a quality programmer, idk how that is also slop.
-
on Ban AI Slop? in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 3d ago
What happens if AI gets good enough in like 5-10 years to (largely) no longer fit the created definition of slop? Do we revise the definition to be more restrictive, allow the content, or block AI content all together.
The answer to this question determines if it’s really about the quality of the content or if it’s more about the fact it is computer generated.
-
on Ban AI Slop? in c/opensource@lemmy.ml · 3d ago
messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional
Okay, you’ve described my code. Now what about the AI?
-
on The Next Chapter for Bungie in c/games@lemmy.world · 3d ago
Only time will really tell. No Man’s Sky did the hard work of turning around their awful launch, but it took years. It wasn’t until last year they had over 80% positive reviews on Steam. In all that time, all those additions, and they never charged more, never added paid DLC’s, it was all added to anyone that ever bought the game. No microtransactions, no loot boxes, no battle basses, just them making the game they originally promised.
I can’t imagine Bungie doing the same thing for that long. I see them breaking and enshitifying their games for money. I don’t think they have what it takes. But hey, I’d love for them to prove me wrong.
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
Rare does not mean good. I could write a novel, and it would be fucking atrocious. If I released 5 copies, it would be extremely rare, but it wouldn’t be worth shit.
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
They would only need a single copy of each book. They aren’t trying to get all possible copies to prevent others from getting them. They are trying to train their AI as quickly and cheaply as possible
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
Except when they are digitized and made publicly avaiable
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
That is probably the ultimate conclusion. Except there will be some bullshit exception for Disney and all the other mega media corporations.
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
It’s like if Fahrenheit 451 had the firefighters meticulously remove the spines and digitize the books before burning them. Amazon is buying a single copy of these books, and destroying the books to make it faster to digitize. Just not at all book burning.
You should be pissed about them using other peoples works to train their AI behemoth for profit. Not make a false equivalence to book burning…
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
They were purchased from Biblio. Literally Biblio’s tagline: “Used Books and Rare Books from Antiquarian Booksellers”
-
on Amazon Caught Destroying Rare Books to Train AI in c/technology@lemmy.world · 19 Aug 2026
The answer to that question is obvious. They can do it 1000x faster cutting the spin and sending all the pages through a scanner. Otherwise you have to have something flip through every page and take a picture.
-
on Firefox is now the last major browser that still supports uBlock Origin in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Aug 2026
What is mediocre about it? What would be an example of a good browser, and what are the differences?
-
on Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal in c/technology@lemmy.world · 14 Aug 2026
That’s what I said. AI haters are attacking, and he was defending against them, telling them to look in a mirror
-
on uBlock Origin Is Giving Up the Fight to Keep Ads Off Facebook in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026
It’s not a matter of technical implementation, but a procedural one. It was never a secret, it was just too expensive and impractical to do. If you changed how you implement ads every single day, the ad blockers would have to change their rules every day. Just keep going forever, and eventually the adblockers won’t have the resources to keep up.
It’s like if a food truck driver was trying to operate without a permit. If they sat in the same spot every day, officials would see them and easily catch them. If they moved to different apots around town every day and repainted their truck, they could evade officials. That’s not a secret, it’s just that it’s more work than it’s worth. While not a great analogy for many reasons, the idea is that it was never a secret how to get past ad blockers. It was just never worth the money. You’d spend more money implementing the evasion than you’d get back from the ad revenue.
At this point yhey are probably using AI to do the job of adjusting ad formats, so humans especially couldn’t keep up. Perhaps AI could be used to counteract it, but that’s expensive to setup and keep running. A free software obviously can’t aford that.
Sure, they could have been silent about it, but they would still get reports about missed ads. There would be enough hubbub online they’d eventually have to address. Maybe this way they can use the attenion to get more contributors
-
on Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026
I’m not sure you understood. That quote is defending against AI haters
-
on Linus Torvalds says AI has made 'huge' Linux kernel updates the new normal in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026
What stand does he take? “Don’t use AI”? How does he enforce that? He is working with volunteers, so it’s not like he can cut their pay
-
on uBlock Origin Is Giving Up the Fight to Keep Ads Off Facebook in c/technology@lemmy.world · 12 Aug 2026
Companies absolutely can pay people solely to combat ad blockers. That will always win. Facebook doesn’t have a “system” other than always changing their system. Any company can constantly change how they display ads. The ad blockers are just always playing catch up until the corporation exhausts the volunteers energy.
If the solution is to get new volunteers to keep up the work, why don’t we have people willing to take on that role? Most people that have the know how arent using facebook anyway, so there’s no motivation from them.
Without legislature to enforce some rules on corporations, the ones with the money will always win.
-
on New Orleans will use AI to answer 911 calls instead of a human in c/technology@lemmy.world · 9 Aug 2026
It’s a human thing, above all else. If they wanted logical reasonable discussion, they should talk to robots. Except that’s the thing they hate
If the result of the monkeys throwing bricks in a pile is indistinguishable from a team of builders, what does it matter how it got there. If the end result is a pile of garbage, of course it’s unusable and a waste of resources. It’s about the end result.
Imagine if in the year 2000 someone said “how many studies does it take to show computers are slow before we stop wasting time on them”. It’s a technology. Whether you like it or not, this moment is the worst the technology will ever be. The studies you reference are about outdated technology