- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- programmer_humor@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
It feels disengenuous to say people vibe code things.
I know it’s correct English, I just think it’s kind of a bullshit statement.
When dumbasses talk to AI’s and the AI’s do things for them, it’s wild to think the credit goes to the dumbasses.
This is like your boss saying he did all your dev work and calling it “boss coding”.
collabora for me. Libreoffice-based but adjusted for “normies” (user interface from this century)
The 1995 user interface soothes my nerves but I will give collabora a try
The only reason Microsoft exists today is because of Exchange and an old market share on consumer/prosumer OS.
They’re a glorified email hosting company and an embarrassment to software development. Idc what AI does to their shitty software. Fucking hate Outlook.
That’s not really accurate, Azure is massive.
Linux
But irrelevant for most users. Azure can stay all it wants but we must be freed from the shackles of Microsoft Office
Maybe for most personal users, but in B2B (where the money is) …
“… an AI slop version of Microsoft Office that doesn’t fucking work” also known as Microsoft Office 365
Long live Libre devs!! Been with yall for over a decade
a couple of months ago i asked about this one of local Forbes editors and they explained this phenomenon as “because it is expected to code by hand but managing to vibe anything is amazing”. i decided not to continue this conversation because that’s fucking stupid
“because it is expected to code by hand but managing to vibe anything is amazing”.
I don’t think it’s wise to stake the future of computing on “It’s not that the bear dances well, it’s that the bear dances at all.”
maybe that’s why some rando forbes editor is not a CEO of some nondescript startup.
It’s not really stupid. Things that are unusual are more noticeable, and garner more comment. We’ve grown used to devs tirelessly doing what they do, to the point most people don’t think about where their software comes from, but a machine sort of doing it (poorly, so very poorly) is novel, so people talk about it.
Currently, software mostly working as it should is the norm, so people don’t talk about it much. When the wave of slopcoded disasters starts to grow, people will talk about it, because software is suddenly not working as it should.
and yet no one is celebrating a piece of software well done
Id be done for a “it just works” day to celebrate all of invisable labour that makes the world work
That’s supposed to be Labour Day/ May Day
they’re desperate for ai to be profitable.
you’re right
Tinfoil hat time:
A year ago, I did some reverse engineering. I figured a pattern matching engine has to be good matching patterns, so I threw the messed-up output of Ghidra into Claude to clean it up and to give me an overview of what the fuck happens in a certain part.
I was absolutely surprised. Sure, it got some things wrong, but it knew way more than it should have been able to guess from that short bit of fucked up, optimised not-quite-C. Including guessing context that it should not be able to guess. This was a firmware with not-yet-released functions that, to my knowledge, shouldn’t exist outside of this bit of binary firmware. At least not for us non-NDA mortals.
At the time, Mistral had a new-ish model as well, so I figured I’d give it a try. It worked as expected, cleaned up things, gave variables reasonable names, made educated guesses and so on, but didn’t act as if it had background info. And I was using Sonnet 4.x, so the small Claude which shouldn’t be that much larger.
Since then, I have the conspiracy theory that the Claude people threw a bunch of proprietary sources in the training, too. I have no idea how, maybe aggressively training on user inputs? Anyway, this does not help to allalleviate my suspicions.
Oh it learned enough from code that it has developed some basic, and hear me out of this, artificial verbal intelligence. I know I know, not just pattern matching, but actual artificial intelligence at a low level.
Please don’t downvote me (sorry don’t remember if this is fuckai or not) but I’m just saying it’s one possible explanation to this phenomenon you describe.
i would err towards it ingesting proprietary code before this, it’s not wrong but AI spits out copyrighted and should-be private stuff all the time.
They’re using gig workers by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions to do “data annotation”. You can actually make quite a bit if you’ve got higher credentials like Phd, masters, or a very good resume.
My theory is they’ve been using professionals to inadvertently leak proprietary methodologies. They could be doing so by creating problems for them to solve that lead people to inadvertently expose solutions based on their actual jobs.
It’s lowkey corporate espionage.
I threw about 10 short phrased meeting notes (4-5 words each) into an LLM to get some document formatting started with titles and sections etc. It built a full scope document and inferred a ton of information about the project and product. It was surprising how much it could infer, and suggested very sensible testing criteria and alternate solutions should the main product path not pan out.
I can see why people start believing it “thinks”, because it was remarkable what it “understood” about a vague new product. Had I sent the info out to stake holders, they would have assumed this person was a key team member that was involved from day 1.
“Intelligence”, as a word has always been ill defined. What’s it mean? It’s mostly been used to create prejudices via standardized tests, the bell curve, and IQ tests.
I don’t believe it’s “intelligent” as we don’t really know how to define that. But I do think it’s really really really good at writing reasonable seeming statements in various languages using probability.
Coding and programming, are just languages. So it will likely be able to get pretty damn good at it, just as it has with the English language.
I think with LLM accurate regurgitation of facts, is the colary to good code.
But I don’t believe that means it “thinks” (which requires introspection, and an internal experience). It does multi-agent computing, and this might even simulate some aspects of thinking… But it’s not thinking. It’s computing.
It won’t be able to do any more than that, until it consistently gets data from having a body (and something like glial thought-interaction/organs/flaws/survival).
By the way, this also means if you could download a mind to a computer - it would slowly lose it’s humanity as it lived longer and longer interfacing with computer systems rather than human systems/organs/experiencs.
Eventually that “uploaded human” would become a Clankr, and stop understanding human life, the will to survive/think. Eventually it would just compute (not think/care or have flaws).
Many sci-fi stories are based on the man-to-technology-to-cold-rational-evil pipeline… Less have gone in the other direction, even though it often produces very popular characters: Spock, Data, the Terminator, Pinnoccio.
Makes me wonder how much of the frontier models hacking is just “our devs uploaded the codebase to Claude and suddenly it knows where all the backdoors are”?
I guess most, honestly
I specificity asked our CEO about this just to cover my ass. It seems insane to trust these guys at all. Here in the USA, small businesses have de facto no legal protection from large businesses.
Absolutely. Especially if you have company info / IP that someone else would pay a lot for. This is a question for lawyers and managers to negotiate with the lawyers at OpenAI, Anthropic etc, not for us little people to decide. I’m not throwing company data in an online service that is not cleared for us to use, and I don’t even work with spicy stuff. Back in my IT days we would have called that a data breach, which would have lead to something from an unpleasant hour in the boss’ office to a promotion to customer.
Since then, I have the conspiracy theory that the Claude people threw a bunch of proprietary sources in the training, too.
An enormous amount of people use this technology for privat company data without batting an eye; not just software developers, but business people for reports, etc.
They all throw their confidential data in there without even considering the implications, just “trusting” Anthropic. claude code bots are running on tens of thousands of proprietary code bases that used to be private, and of course they are using all this data to train their model.
It’s standard operating practice to steal everything. The world’s full of dumb fucks.
Then people are surprised that claude code gets better at coding
Better at replicating closed source software.
It surely gets better at coding in general, after all there are smart people at anthropic with near limitless budgets, but my conspiracy thesis is that it gets a lot better at replicating stuff it has seen before, but really shouldn’t have.
Meta had an explicit higher price for using their model without retention of prompts for training. This all but confirms your theory.
Wait… wait… you believe Facebook?
Oh, facebook will steal the data even if they say they won’t. What’s interesting is they put a price on blatant prompt copying.
We steal your data: $5 We steal your data and tell you we don’t: $10
I’m sure it’s all but officially confirmed, that all the people upload to it goes to training data unsanitised. And Microslop for sure uploaded entirety of their codebase to all the bots. This is at least part of the reason why claude is so surprisingly OK at reverse-engineering all the big stuff.
My experience of using AI is it can save you a LOT of work, but you need to supervise it REALLY closely and give it sufficient code context for it to work properly. It only knows what it knows and if it doesn’t know it will make shit up. But if you do use it within its limits it will identify bugs, generate tests, generate a lot of boiler plate and help you be more productive.
Being open source is not a reason to avoid it. However AI does produce slop and unattended it can produce execrable patches which are practically incoherent to anyone used to human coding patterns. So there should be rules about coding style, patch / merge / pull requests that diffs are self evident, concise and obvious. Most AIs will read a guidance file so this stuff can be defined. And if a person uses AI to generate a patch they should review this patch first before daring anyone else to look at it.
Yes, personally I don’t have a huge problem if someone uses an LLM, that’s been trained only on opensource code, on a project, but that someone has to put their name to the code, documentation, tests or anything elsr produced, and take full responsibility for it. As in, they suffer the same consequences if it causes an issue as if they’d hand coded it, with particular attention paid to whether the result is maintainable, and whether it breaches any licences.
Of course, most LLMs have, by now, injested a lot of proprietary code that people have mindlessly sent in queries, rendering all of their output tainted.
I don’t like LibreOffice but any actual Open Source dev deserves infinite more respect than those prompstitutes.
I disagree, their efforts don’t go unnoticed. Their recent no-AI claims prompted me to donate.
Wow, it managed to perfectly replicate Microsoft office?
How it looks, not how it works. Very buggy iir.
whooshing sound
I think that was the joke, because MS Office sucks. lol
Attention goes to that AI can fuck their creators though, not to the clone Programms.
To be fair, neither does the real MS office
LibreOffice - the only office suite that handles tables correct, even when multiple users change the document 🥳
Do windows next! WA and IG too! Might as well go whole hog on the corpos.
I mean windows is already vibe coded
Judging from their past performances and ideas, it was already vibe coded long before AI. Based on the vibes of whoever was in charge at that point.
They need to implement the rest of the Wine stub functions. That would make it 100% compatible with windows applications…
That’s a bit of a risky thing to do. They need to be careful not to introduce some proprietary code.
Nah, that would be productive and not flashy enough for a publicity stunt.
