in eternal darkness, you had to choose a red-green-blue cosmic being to side with and you would fight the cosmic being of the opposite color, but if you NG+'d it three times the timelines would merge and all three cosmic beings would get obliterated

brb gotta test something

zulip added slop to their codebase a long time ago (1, 2) but now they’ve released this bullshit blog post with some choice nonsense:

I seriously considered banning LLM use for Zulip contributions. But our view is that contributors should be allowed to use modern tools in the service of producing great, reviewable work. AI-assisted work is of course subject to the same rigorous review processes we’ve always used for community contributions.

So we decided to invest in creating, refining, and enforcing a new AI use policy, which has the following key tenets:

• End-to-end human responsibility for work and the communication around it. You always need to understand, test, and explain the changes you’re proposing to make, whether or not you used an LLM as part of your process to produce them.
• Clear and concise communication about points that actually require discussion. While we allow carefully edited AI-generated PR descriptions, we’ve had to ban AI-generated chat messages in the development community as too disruptive. Manual enforcement of this policy has been rough, with far more PRs closed without review, stern warnings, and outright bans of repeat offenders than we’ve ever had to apply before. (What do you do when someone apologizes for submitting AI slop… by copy-pasting an apology from ChatGPT, including surrounding quotation marks?) We expect that next fall, automation or other major changes will be required for the PR triage process to be manageable.

The results [of using Claude] were promising (and far better than just a few months prior) — enough for us to start investing in teaching Claude Code how to self-review its work, and how to produce PRs that are easy for maintainers to review. This has largely been an AI-supported process of digesting our contributor documentation into CLAUDE.md, and iterating when we see the model struggle.

i liked zulip 😞

Beads.

wish i had thought of this before clearing out my inbox 😞

hackneyed; stale

you seem like the kind of dork whose brain literally explodes when you read this sentence

clanker

edit: this may be used to refer to the chatbots themselves, rather than those who fondle chatbots

holy shit how have i never heard of this paper

thank you for sharing!

this is gonna live in my head forever without paying any rent and i am upset

is anyone else fucking sick and tired of discord? it’s one thing if it’s gaming-related^[1], but when i’m at a repo for some non-gaming project and they say “ask for help in our discord server”, i feel like i’m in a fever dream and i’m going to wake up and discover that the simulation i was in was managed by chatgpt

deleted by creator

ugh cybersecurity is already a fucking nightmare i should have braced myself

an unintended side effect of this is people who can’t or don’t want to verify their age going to less reputable sources. so even though it can be done in a “privacy-respecting fashion” (see, for example, soatok’s post on this^[1] ), it’s still a bad idea.

additionally, in my opinion no one who wants to enact such a thing is doing it in good faith. it is a pretense towards an ulterior goal^[2]

weird fuck’s post reads to me as the mistake of thinking web/js is uniquely capable of dynamic code loading

what is stopping a desktop or mobile client from running new/different code? the only solution im aware of (we’re in halting problem territory here, probably, though grapheneos has “prevent DCL from storage/memory” toggles so idk) is to inspect the code to make sure it does what they say and then cryptographically sign it

i made the stupid mistake of doing math, then cs

surrounded by

my narrow technical specialty + lack of experience or knowledge of other fields = i’m the smartest, here is a trivial solution to your problem

constantly

you can save even more time by not doing the work at all

the output is more consistent than what an LLM shits out, too

Edit: serious note, even though you probably aren’t worth anyone’s time: you may be conflating the technology’s actual use cases (as an accountability sink and to spread misinformation) with the intentions of its creators. and the real reason higher-ups are pushing this is because they’re pliant dipshits that would eat dogfood if the bowl was labelled “FOMO”. also they hate paying employees

it won’t eat oats

not sure why but this really ruins it for me

deleted by creator

the question was rhetorical, but also thank you for the links! <3

i am not surprised that they are all this dumb: it takes an especially stupid person to decide “yes, i am fine allowing this machine to speak for me”. even more so when it’s made clear that the machine is a stochastic parrot trained via exploitation of the global south and massive amounts of plagiarism and that it also cooks the planet

i bought some bullshit from amazon and left a somewhat pretty mean review because debugging it was super frustrating

the seller reached out and offered a refund, so i told them basically “no, it’s ok, just address the concerns in my review. let me update my review to be less mean-spirited — i was pretty frustrated setting it up but it mostly works fine”

then they sent a message that had the “llm vibe”, and the rest of the conversation went

Seller: You’re right — we occasionally use LLM assistance for responses, but every message is reviewed to ensure accuracy and relevance to your concerns. We sincerely apologize if our previous replies dissatisfied you; this was our oversight.

Me: I am not simply dissatisfied. I will no longer communicate with your company and will update my review to note that you sent me synthetic text without my consent. Please do not reply to this message.

Seller: All our replies are genuine human-to-human communication with you, without using any synthetic text. It’s possible our communication style gave you a different impression. We aim to better communicate with you and absolutely did not intend any offense. With every customer, we maintain a conscientious and responsible attitude in our communications.

Me: “we occasionally use LLM assistance for responses”
“without using any synthetic text”
pick one

are all promptfondlers this fucking dumb?