PKop

It's hated by everyone, why would people imitate it? You're inventing a rationale that either doesn't exist or would be stupider than the alternative. The obvious answer here it they just used an LLM.

> and clearly it serves some benefit to readers.

What?

Maybe this is the case, but why is your presumption of entitlement to free labor of others the assumed social contract, the assumed "moral" position, rather than the immoral one?

Why is the assumed social contract that is unwritten not that you can have the free labor we've released to you so far, but we owe you nothing in the future?

There's too much assumption of the premise that "moral" and "social contract" are terms that make the entitled demands of free-loaders the good guys in this debate. Maybe the better "morality" is the selfless workers giving away the product of their labor for free are the actual good guys.

Why do you presume to think your definition of morals is shared by everyone? Why is entitlement to others labor the moral position, instead of the immoral position?

Yes, he coined the term rather than invent the technique

When has engaging with trolls ever worked? When has "talking to an LLM" or human bot ever made it stop talking to you lol?

Debate is a fine thing with people close to your interests and mindset looking for shared consensus or some such. Not for enemies. Not for someone spamming your open source project with LLM nonsense who is harming your project, wasting your time, and doesn't deserve to be engaged with as an equal, a peer, a friend, or reasonable.

I mean think about what you're saying: This person that has wasted your time already should now be entitled to more of your time and to a debate? This is ridiculous.

> I really wonder if this has literally ever worked.

I'm saying it shows them they will get no engagement with you, no attention, nothing they are doing will be taken seriously, so at best they will see that their efforts are futile. But in any case it costs the maintainer less effort. Not engaging with trolls or idiots is the more optimal choice than engaging or debating which also "never works" but more-so because it gives them attention and validation while ignoring them does not.

> What is it about legitimacy that's so scary?

I don't know what this question means, but wasting your time, and giving them engagement will create more comments you will then have to respond to. What is it about LLM spammers that you respect so much? Is that what you do?. I don't know about "scary" but they certainly do not deserve it. Do you disagree?

Convince who? Reasonable people that have any sense in their brain do not have to be convinced that this behavior is annoying and a waste of time. Those that do it, are not going to be persuaded, and many are doing it for selfish reasons or even to annoy maintainers.

The proper engagement (no engagement at all except maybe a small paragraph saying we aren't doing this go away) communicates what needs to be communicated, which is this won't be tolerated and we don't justify any part of your actions. Writing long screeds of deferential prose gives these actions legitimacy they don't deserve.

Either these spammers are unpersuadable or they will get the message that no one is going to waste their time engaging with them and their "efforts" as minimal as they are, are useless. This is different than explaining why.

You're showing them it's not legitimate even of deserving any amount of time to engage with them. Why would they be persuadable if they already feel it's legitimate? They'll just start debating you if you act like what they're doing deserves some sort of negotiation, back and forth, or friendly discourse.

“Why shouldn’t our old people, namely those who have no other recourse, likewise suck the blood of a youth?”

Importing foreigners makes your own domestic birth rates worse than they otherwise would be! Some levels of automation will make the overall labor needs lower than they have been in the past. Countries that import many millions of (often) 3rd world populations or in general more bodies wherever they come from that must be employed (or subsidized by taxpayers) and also that are going to want to be married and have children are simply going to exacerbate the fiscal problems, the social problems, the unemployment problems, the family formation problems, while creating resource constraints you otherwise wouldn't have.

So much of this nonsense talk of need for immigrants is policy based on propping up the asset values and lifestyles and subsidization of the elderly which apart even from immigration is arguably the 2nd biggest travesty western nations are subjecting their young people to (prioritizing everything related to interest of the old at the expense of the young, see: COVID). The natural course of events MUST be population growth slow/decline until elderly die out and while you back-fill growth from younger people from your own country to have their own ability to grow, buy real estate, have families, have jobs, not pay exorbitant transfer payments to old and immigrants either through social services, or lost wages. Stealing this opportunity by giving this slack away to foreigners is just so evil in my view.

The carrying-capacity in terms of "comfortable lifestyle" akin to what our recent ancestors experienced in their nations during peacetime is what it is, and when we bump up against those limits, we can't fool ourselves that whatever pain comes next can be solved by causing other worse problems of filling our countries up with more people we have to compete against for everything and making already tough resource constraints worse. How much more unhappy and hopeless for housing and family formation will Australians be as millions and millions more immigrants come in? Why would anyone want that and how does it solve whatever demographics problem you think exists? The solution is population decline, which would help young people. Of course if there is some iron law of politics or the universe that states young people must bear the burden of subsidizing the complete comfort of old people from birth to death, well then we're already screwed.

I don't think it's just anecdotal it's a loud chorus over many decades of popular opposition from large portions of western nations in our supposed "democracies" that is ignored by most players in politics.

I've come across so many Australians online holding the same sentiments as myself. "Per capita" measures of "economy" mean more to me than nebulous claims of the the overall economy benefiting from immigration. When I look over time the quality of life and level of development in Australia, nothing points to any such need of an influx of millions of foreigners for most Australians. It's obvious why some businesses want to improve labor margins and why politicians benefit from diluting domestic voters base and important a voting block, though mostly it's a sort of civic religious belief apart from any practical concrete benefit so many leaders support it because they think it is a moral obligation.

Lower birth rates, massively unaffordable housing, strains on public programs and healthcare, as well as reshaping the character and ethnic makeup of the country all to the detriment most especially of young people are all reasons why I think Australia's mass immigration program is traitorous to its own citizens. Japan has more of an immigration policy I think is worth emulating, which is to the benefit of it's own people.

So much of "living in a place" is a zero-sum competition for resources with everyone else around you. Doubly so when you take into account intangible social loyalties and support networks, trust, sense of community etc that all go down as diversity rises. But again, just the massive increase in people in and of itself is huge punch in the face to young people and other citizens. What these people do not need is a rise in competition over space, and rival claims on democratic political power.

I think there is no mainstream policy you can advocate for that is as detrimental to and harms your fellow citizens more than immigration.

[0] https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/the-austral...

The Federal Reserve confirmed this a couple years ago that housing inflation was in part due to a large increase in immigrant population over last few years.

The net fiscal impact from the cohort of immigrants we get now is negative; they cost taxpayers more than they contribute. They take more from welfare and social services than than they pay in and more than current citizens. Additionally there is increased crime. There are so many of these that are not adding any economic benefit period, and for those that do, that benefit accrues to a small subset of business owners and politicians, not the general population of citizens. H1B expansion of foreign worker visas for example is bad for displaced American workers. The mindset that considers their own fellow citizens lacking such that they want to replace them with foreigners is insane to me. None of these western countries needs something such that they must get it from others; they can cultivate all of this from their own people, and birthrates would increase if not for the crowding out through increased costs especially housing, insurance, and depressed wages from importation of immigrants.

When I drive on the roads, when I shop for housing or apartments, when I want to pay for car insurance, when I got public spaces, parks, cities, vacation spots, got to stores.... I've never ever had the thought "You know what would make my quality of life better? If we had 100 million more people especially those that come from a different culture and speak a different language here and everywhere else right now". That is such a ridiculously foolish mindset, and disservice to one's own neighbors and such. Makes no sense to me.

We definitely should do this, yes.

No, it's broken because we've allowed millions of foreigners to come in and raise said healthcare and housing costs. Checking that people here actually belong here else they're deported is part of the "cost of living" solution, in addition to crime.

It's definitely a mess, but based on the massive decline in signal vs noise of public comments and issues on open source recently, that's not a bad heuristic for filtering quality.

> "Peer review"

no unless your "peers" are bots who regurgitate LLM slop.

Very salient concept in regards to LLM's and the idea that one can encode a program one wishes to see output in natural English language input. There's lots of room for error in all of these LLM transformations for same reason.

LLM's have always been at any time limited in the amount of tokens it can process at one time. This is increasing, but one problem is chat threads continually increase in size as you send messages back and forth because within any session or thread you are sending the full conversation to the LLM every message (aside from particular optimizations that compact or prune this). This also increases costs which are charged per token. Efficiency of cost and performance/precision/accuracy dictates using the context window judiciously.

Knowing this, it was over before it ever started. Beyond the masses of people already having aversion to the oddness of how it worked and likely never wanting to try it, these and others would swear off the store forever the first time they ever got charged for something they didn't take. No one wants to monitor and fix erroneous purchase errors.

Oh man this is what consumers would love to do, have to constantly adjudicate false positives online which they'd have to track to make sure didn't happen. What nonsense.