bakugo

My favorite part of GNOME is how the Windows 8 start screen wannabe truncates the names of apps, and provides absolutely no way to see their full name.

Don't know if it's still the case on the latest version, but for like a decade, opening it on Ubuntu would greet you with an icon named "Software Upda..." and another one named "Software & Up...". Every time I saw it, I'd have to stop and scratch my head for a minute, wondering how such a thing could remain unchanged for so long.

Why do you expect people to not be hostile against something that exists to steal their work and replace them?

> Who cares? Who are these people writing these posts? Why should we give anything they have to say warrant? These posts are getting old, very quick.

Anyone could say the same about any post they don't agree with, doesn't seem very helpful.

I think the key distinction is that it's difficult to determine whether a single commit or pull request is bad code at a glance, but it's easy to determine when the codebase as a whole has gone bad due to many low quality commits.

The latter often doesn't even require looking at the code, you can usually feel it just by using the software. From my experience, all software primarily written by AI is full of little bugs and inconsistencies that reflect bad code architecture (such as two very similar pieces of functionality in two different places behaving in wildly different ways, due to the AI being unaware of the first when asked to implement the second and writing the code twice)

> Opensource is defined by it's licensing terms

Licensing terms that are now irrelevant, since anyone can use AI to rewrite it without the license.

> the community around it.

Open source communities are dying due to AI spam.

You should add "make no mistakes" too, just in case.

The product of an individual's mind is not the same as the mathematical average of the products of everyone's minds. The latter is obviously going to lack any of the uniqueness of the former.

Current models absolutely suck at writing fictional characters, by the way. And they're getting worse. Seriously, try it yourself: have Claude write a story with a decent amount of dialogue involving character A, then have it write another story involving a completely different character B, then compare the dialogue between the two. You'll quickly notice the same blatantly unnatural speech patterns in both.

> But there's a second hurdle that makes it hard for a small but important subset of humanity to understand that chatbots aren't people: the billionaires to whom nearly everyone isn't a real person. These solipsists see chatbots as being equivalent (or even superior) to humans, because they don't think most humans are fully people, either

Never thought about it that way before, but the more I do, the more sense it makes.

I'd take it a bit further, even - I don't think this is exclusive to billionaires. Many of the claims I've heard regarding AI output being indistinguishable from human creation start to make a lot more sense when you consider the person making those claims may not see the people around them as human, may not see themselves as human, or may not even have a concept of what makes a human different from any everyday object.

How so? Do you believe the average person will think twice when TikTok asks them to submit a picture of their ID? No, they'll do it without a second thought so they can go back to mindlessly scrolling through the slop.

The ones who will think twice are exactly the sort of people these laws are intended to punish: the dissenters, the wrong-thinkers, those who must be silenced. Either they choose not to verify and cease to use social media (successfully silenced), or they allow their wrong thoughts to be tied to their identity, such that they can be identified and punished accordingly.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone miss the point of free (as in freedom) software as hard as this before.

I feel like this is a generational comment, similar to that one from 2007 about Dropbox. I'm going to save it in a safe place. 20 years from now, when free software is a forgotten relic of the past and all computing devices that the average person may legally own are just thin clients into some sort of AI agent in the cloud, incapable of running any unapproved code, I'm going to look back at this and have a good laugh before crying.

There's something deeply ironic about calling someone selfish for not wanting billion dollar corporations to suck up everything they've ever created and then sell it back to them.

On the contrary, I think social media bans are poised to accomplish exactly what they're intended to: provide a convenient justification for forced identity verification across all websites.

Forcing their own proprietary filename was clearly a business decision (it's free advertising, along with commit co-authorship). I wonder what made them go back on it.

It's not new. Maybe this page is new, but being able to set up a quick tunnel on trycloudflare.com without an account has been a thing for years.

That's just AI at work. It's much easier to ask Copilot to make some unnecessary UI change or add a new minor feature nobody needed, than it is to ask it to fix the fundamental stability and reliability issues that plague the software.

And knowing how these sorts of large corporations are structured, I wouldn't be surprised if the people who spend a few hours prompting AI to add some new unnecessary feature are being rewarded more than the people breaking their backs trying to stop the site from collapsing under the weight of 100 million vibe coders.

Indeed. Impoverished third world countries are known for having very low birthrates.

I keep hearing about how software development is a solved problem in the age of AI... and then reality hits, like we see here.

Except most vibe coders proudly admit that they don't even look at the code anymore. Can you really make those small decisions during the cooking process if you're not touching or even looking at the food at any point?

> Are you saying Assassin's Creed 87 or Far Cry 32 aren't cheap clones of its own previous incarnations?

If your goal was to prove that people don't care about how derivative games are, I think you picked some pretty bad examples, because Ubisoft is not in a good place right now. And I'd argue that the main reason behind it is precisely that lack of originality.

Hell, even the biggest titans of the "release the same game every year" part of the industry, such as Call of Duty, have been stumbling in recent years due to people inevitably getting bored of playing derivative slop made by people who don't understand what made the originals good, and can only mindlessly copy it over and over.

"That is almost to say that the only part of the meal that matters is the cooking. But the cooking is only a tiny part. I take joy in describing the food I want and bringing that vision to life."

Hundreds of hours doing what? If you're not reviewing the code, then what are you doing, just planning features? Because that would be trivial to copy in a fraction of the time by just feeding screenshots of your app to one's AI of choice.

An interesting coincidence.

As of right now, they only expire credits if you don't use the account at all for a year. This is different from, say, OpenAI, where your credits expire unconditionally. That said, they do deserve the right to expire them regardless, so this could change in the future.

https://app.answerhq.co/openrouter-ai/articles/credits/credi...

There are none, this isn't a problem specific to OR as much as it is a problem with serving LLMs in general.

If you use any other meta-provider that routes your requests to third party providers, you'll likely face the same issues. If you try using any of those providers directly, you'll likely face some of the same issues as well, except you won't have the option of quickly swapping to a different one and taking your credits with you.

Extreme variance in quality and feature support per provider is probably the biggest obstacle holding back adoption of open weights models.

Update: I raised this issue on their platform issue tracker, and was informed that it is, in fact, intentional. Sigh...

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/3084

Trying to open any codeberg.org page from my main Helium browser results in a 403 just saying "Bye". Opening in Chrome or Firefox works fine. Very confusing.

Translating code from one language/framework to another is easy for AI to do, as it does not involve solving any novel problems. Making improvements to existing complex codebases is much harder.

I believe "classical" advertisements, as in those intended to convince the average person to purchase a tangible product, are on their way out.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed an increasing percentage of ads that fall outside of that category - either aimed at business owners and wannabe entrepreneurs, trying to sell some sort of get rich quick scheme, or just straight up scams.

Interesting that this is already off the front page after just 4 hours.

So let them? A product that focuses on chasing the competition is effectively useless, because the competition will always be ahead.