AI has suddenly become more useful to open-source developers
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
I can't imagine we'll really be able to trust AI without it's use in open source software where we can see how reliable it is.
AI bug reports went from junk to legit overnight, says Linux kernel czar (theregister.com)
58 points by amarant 4 days ago
Only if you don't have a working content blocker on that device which you should have. Using web devices without content blockers is just as bad for your health as sunbathing on the local garbage dump. Just get a content blocker and protect yourself from the filth. If you happen to use a device which does not allow effective content blocking - something from the fruit factory or something totally googly - you might want to consider getting something which is more aligned with your needs and less with those of the aforementioned companies.
A lot of people seem stuck with their older (correct at the time) views of them still always producing slop.
FWIW I am more of an AI doomer (in the sense that I think the economic results from them will be disastrous for knowledge workers given our political realities) than booster, but in terms of utility to get work done they did pass a clear inflection point quite recently.
So, still pretty likely to produce slop in a large majority of cases
If the most useful place for them is where you've already specced things out to that degree of precision then they aren't that useful?
Speccing things to that precision is the time consuming and difficult work anyways, after all.
I wish this wasn't true because I think it will economically upend the industry in which I have a career, but sadly the universe doesn't care what I wish.
IMO this vastly overestimates how good the "untrained masses" are at thinking in a logical, mathematical way. Apparently something as basic as Calculus II has a fail rate of ~50% in most universities.
If they truly did, there wouldn't be a huge amount of humans whose role is basically "Take what users/executives say they want, and figure out what they REALLY want, then write that down for others".
Maybe I've worked for too many startups, and only consulted for larger companies, but everywhere in businesses I see so many problems that are basically "Others misunderstood what that person meant" and/or "Someone thought they wanted X, they actually wanted Y".
The multi-decade existence of roles like "business analysts" and "product owners" (and sometimes "customer success") is pretty strong evidence that this is not the case.
Most people on here don’t belong to that group of people. So ofc they can find a way to create value out of a thing that requires some tinkering and playing with.
The question is can the techniques evolve to become technologies to produce stuff with minimal effort - whilst only knowing the bare minimum. I’m not convinced personally - it’s a pipe dream and overlooks the innate skill necessary to produce stuff.
There's nothing "basic" about Calculus II. Calculus is uniquely cursed in mathematical education because everything that comes before it is more or less rooted in intuition about the real world, while calculus is built on axioms that are far more abstract and not substantiated well (not until later in your mathematical education). I expect many intelligent, resourceful people to fail it and I think it says more about the abstractions we're teaching than anything else.
But also, prompting LLMs to give good results is nowhere near as complex as calculus.
I mean, yes. I'm worried about my career too, but for different reasons. I don't think these things are actually good enough to replace me, but I do think it doesn't matter to the people signing the cheques.
I don't believe LLMs are producing anything better than slop. I think people's standards have been sinking for a long time and will continue to sink until they reach the level LLMs produce
The problem isn't just LLMs and the fact they produce slop, it's that people are overall pretty fine with slop
I'm not though, so there's no place for me in most software business anymore
But I look at software from the perspective of them as being objects.
Since it’s intangible people can’t see within. So something can look pretty even if underlying it all, it’s slop.
However, there is an implicit trade off - mounting slop makes you more vulnerable from a security standpoint, bugs etc which can destroy trust and experience of using the software. This can essentially put the life of a business at risk.
People aren’t thinking so much about that risk - because it hasn’t happened to anyone large substantially. What I think about is will slop just continue to mount unchecked? Or are people expecting there to be improvements that enable oneself to go back and clean up the slop with more powerful tooling?
If the latter does not come about, I think we will see more firms come under stress.
Overall though, I think too much focus is on the acceleration of output. I never think that’s the most important thing. It’s secondary to having a crystal clear vision. The problem is to have a clear vision requires doing a lot of grunt work - it trains and conditions your mind to think a particular kind of way.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Opus 4.6 has been a step change. It's simply never wrong anymore. You may need to continue giving it further clarification as to what you want, but it never makes mistakes with what it intends to do now.
I do agree that the Q1 2026 models in general have passed a threshold, but goodness almighty Opus 4.6 still screws up a lot.
Odd sentiment. It's pretty clear the tools crossed a threshold last year (in April as I recall) where they became good enough to actually write entire applications, and just accelerated from there. Today they're amazing and no-one I know is writing artisanal code anymore (at least, not at work).
This is the buried lede. It's a propaganda piece.