I agree largely, but hold up a bit on the statement that getting an LLM to write the code means I never solved the problem. That may be true for a lot of vibe-coders - loops of "write this code" "no, not that", "fix plz", etc. But what I've found is that Claude (at least) does best on small problems that are very well defined - in other words, I have to solve the problem _before_ I can get Claude to produce the code for me, if for no other reason than that the model will model along, and needs an expert on the problem to be able to push back when it's wrong.
So I agree that leaving an LLM churning for a week or two and then claiming that you have a product to sell is tenuous, but I disagree that one can't both use an LLM _and_ understand the solution - it just takes active participation towards that result.
Whilst there's no remuneration involved, I view projects I put up on github (that I also tell other people about) in the same light - so, for example, the largely-ai-written https://github.com/fluffynuts/nestray, whilst designed to scratch an itch of mine, may be useful for others because I've aimed at some level of genericism. Is it a perfect product? NO! But it does what I want, and probably what someone else might want with respect to showing email notifications without requiring any account access (simply reads from local Thunderbird files)
Recognising this has also made me recognise the real problem of using an LLM without expert knowledge in the domain - if you don't know when it's wrong, you won't know when to push back. So whilst I can be very critical of code outputs, for example, my knowledge of quantum mechanics is so rudimentary that it's practically impossible to push back on conversations about QM. So who knows if my hobby knowledge actually holds any value? The best I can do here, when repeating the information, is to say "at least, that's what the machine says".
you could enable prompts on download - and set the filename yourself (or just rename after download). Ultimately, naming it yourself is the only way you're going to get names you're happy with.
And, for an encore - stop all the other stupid shit. The rest of the world (and the US) is paying the price for little trump-tantrums, like the one against Iran. He's not a good international leader. He's not even a reasonable at-home president.
functionally the same - and more accurate to use the original title, as Cuba is the one doing the blaming. I don't know why you're standing up for this - it's more bad behavior from a country that sells itself as the savior, and it's not new - they've been doing this (whatever they need to, to change regimes) in other countries for decades. It's shameless bullying, and completely contravenes "the rules" about how to interact with other countries.
1. the logs hopefully tell you where to look
2. the logs hopefully give you enough context to construct a physical test (ie, replicate)
3. the physical test hopefully gives enough context to write an automated test
4. we write the automated test, submit to staging, do the physical test again
5. PROFIT!
either:
1. you spend all the effort and time (and money - it's not free to drive around, and there are often join fees) to switch banks and it makes no difference whatsoever, or
2. the overall energy consumption remains the same, and everyone levels out, because that's just how much energy banks require per customer
I'm all for saving the earth but I don't see how making my life more difficult will change this situation one iota - meanwhile, I have limited time to live, limited resources of my own.
Good distros should backport updates like this - the patch has been merged into several downstreams. Whilst I prefer a rolling release, this isn't the reason to do it. You could even be on a rolling release that is behind (like arch - my Gentoo box was patched for this vuln before I even understood what it was, and I could run the exploit on my arch machine days laterz until eventually the update came). Speed of response by the upstream here is more important than anything else.
I meant from a software architecture / maintenance standpoint. I assume its that much more work to backport vs just pushing the next change, I also assume this type of issue is only going to happen more thus more backporting / hotpatches ect.
So I agree that leaving an LLM churning for a week or two and then claiming that you have a product to sell is tenuous, but I disagree that one can't both use an LLM _and_ understand the solution - it just takes active participation towards that result.
Whilst there's no remuneration involved, I view projects I put up on github (that I also tell other people about) in the same light - so, for example, the largely-ai-written https://github.com/fluffynuts/nestray, whilst designed to scratch an itch of mine, may be useful for others because I've aimed at some level of genericism. Is it a perfect product? NO! But it does what I want, and probably what someone else might want with respect to showing email notifications without requiring any account access (simply reads from local Thunderbird files)
reply