Someone needs to make sure they’re all good boys.

New PornHub tag discovered

Anecdote: there is this annual event called Hacktoberfest for promoting OSS contribution. It offers various merchandise as reward for PRs that get merged as part of the event. A few years back, someone posted a YouTube video trying to promote the event, and demonstrated how to to create a PR by going to some repository and adding some arbitrary text to the README.

What he wanted to convey: “this is the procedure for sending contributions”

What people understood: “you can win a free t-shirt by making small changes to non-code text”

The result: https://joel.net/how-one-guy-ruined-hacktoberfest2020-drama

LLMs did not create this problem. The desire to make bullshit contributions in order to be seen as contributing seems to a basic human need. At least - for some humans. Generative AI did make it so much worse, though, because it’s so good at bullshitting that you have to waste time and spend mental resources in order to recognize the bullshit.

I’m not lasagna though I’m straight.

The cube is the lasagna.

WDYM “close to 50 years old”? The 90’s were only ten years ago!

That’s what happens when you are renting your very skills from a company. You’ll hone nothing and you’ll be happy.

In your defense, it’s written in the only “modern” programming language that encourage this category of errors.

Though you forgot the curly braces and the semicolons are unnecessary.

Yup. These are pretty big issues. But there are also some minor, trivial, purely-preference-based issues - like returning an error if err == nil instead of when it isn’t.

I wouldn’t use the word “robbery”.

I’d use the word “murder”.

American?

Disagree. No computer could ever dream up a reality this stupid.

“I’m not gay, but I need to you take some gay photos for me”

Alternative explanation - the Turkish army is okay with gays as long as they are dominant.

Which… strangely makes sense.

The criteria for what counts as “valid measure method” is not “metrics that would make your ingroup look good”.

When Vance tells a Pope to be careful, that Pope should be careful. You know, considering Vance’s established track record with Popes…

they’re simply requiring any code submitted by AI be tagged as such so that the human using the agent is ultimately responsible for any infringing code, instead of allowing that code go undisclosed

This makes zero sense, because the article says that this new tagging will replace the legally binding “Signed-off-by” tag. Wouldn’t that old tag already put that responsibility on the person submitting the code.

Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve? If an infringement is detected, the Linux maintainers won’t be able to just pass all the blame to the submitter of that code while keeping it in the codebase - they’ll have to remove the infringing code regardless of who’s responsible for putting it in.