this highlights the saddest thing about this whole generative ai thing. beforehand, there was opportunity to learn, deliver and prove oneself outside of classical social organization. now that's all going to go away and everyone is going to fall back on credentials and social standing. what an incredible shame for social mobility and those who for one reason or another don't fit in with traditional structures.
it's also going to kill the open web. nobody is going to want to share their ideas or code publicly anymore. with the natural barriers gone, the incentives to share will go to zero. everything will happen behind closed doors.
GitHub has never been a good method of clout chasing. in decades of being in this industry, I've seen < 1% of potential employers care about FLOSS contributions, as long as you have some stuff on your GH.
The origin of the problems with low-quality drive-by requests is github's social nature[0]. AI doesn't help, but it's not the cause.
I've seen my share of zero-effort drive-by "contributions" so people can pad their GH profile, long before AI, on tiny obscure projects I have published there: larger and more prominent projects have always been spammed.
If anything, the AI-enabled flood will force the reckoning that was long time coming.
I feel this is a bit too pessimistic. For example, people can make tutorials that auto-certify in vouch. Or others can write agent skills that share etiquette, which agents must demonstrate usage of before
PRs can be created.
Yes, there's room for deception, but this is mostly about superhuman skills and newcomer ignorance and a new eternal September that we'll surely figure out
Vouch is forge-agnostic. See the 2nd paragraph in the README:
> The implementation is generic and can be used by any project on any code forge, but we provide GitHub integration out of the box via GitHub actions and the CLI.
And then see the trust format which allows for a platform tag. There isn't even a default-GitHub approach, just the GitHub actions default to GitHub via `--default-platform` flag (which makes sense cause they're being invoked ON GITHUB).
So I can choose from github, gitlab or maybe codeberg? What about self-hosters, with project-specific forges? What about the fact that I have an account on multiple forges, that are all me?
This seems to be overly biased toward centralized services, which means it's just serving to further re-enforce Microsoft's dominance.
It's a text string, platform can be anything you want, then use the vouch CLI (or parse it yourself) to do whatever you want. We don't do identity mapping, because cross-forge projects are rare and maintaining that would centralize the system and its not what we're trying to do. The whole thing is explicitly decentralized with tiny, community specific networks that you build up.
i always got the sense that spinlocks were about maximum portability and reliability in the face of unreliable event driven approaches. the dumb inefficient thing that makes the heads of the inexperienced explode, but actually just works and makes the world go 'round.
it's really bad these days. even the teams web client doesn't work properly and when it does it is missing the most basic features like "test my audio." i don't understand what it is about how that company is organized that the software keeps coming out with interfaces and user experiences that look like they were created by 2023 era generative ai.
no, it's a distributed peer-to-peer alternative to something like github. it has all the features like a locally hosted forgejo/gitea/gitlab, but it also is built on a distributed and fault-tolerant peer-to-peer network for hosting public projects.
in the old days one would add and check for a loop detection token when loops like this could be driven by external systems... i wonder if today it would be as simple as adding "ensure you don't get stuck in any loops" to a prompt.
fwiw. doesn't look like gemini at all, the responses are perfectly canned... maybe just good old fashioned ci rules.
Clang manages to have way more useful error messages despite not solving three halting problem. You don't need to solve the halting problem to have caught this problem. Even if you don't solve it for the general case of the halting problem, solving it here for a levels deep and then collapsing the levels would have stopped this problem in its tracks. Sure, someone could just come in and cause the bug at N+1 levels deep because you've only solved it at N, but you can write different tests to mitigate that problem in practice, despite not having infinity RAM *2+1 to solve the general case of the halting problem.
Hilariously, the halting problem has been written in enough of the LLM training data that it can identify some cases where the code won't terminate.
It's a language model. It doesn't know what a loop is, or have any awareness of that the content it's replying to may be made by itself - as it has no sense of 'self'.
reply