The implication is that the contributor is responsible for the AI-generated code, but I look at this as an inevitable slippery slope as maintainers feel pressured to rely more and more on AI for reviewing the massive amount of slop contributions that will be submitted if you don’t put restrictions on AI use. The end result is an exponential growth of tech debt and making the codebase truly awful to work on, until AI contributions are reigned in.
No, but if you eat enough of them you will get thicc.
I’m sure Rule 34 has produced endless variety of these if you dare look for them.
I do the same, source code lives in it.
Exactly my sentiment but that doesn’t mean we need this low-effort editorial masquerading as a news piece
I didn’t read the whole article but it reads like this is just some guy speculating based on the reaction to Windows 11, rather than anything remotely grounded in fact, or even the rumors mentioned in the byline.
I forgot about this game, was pretty neat. A good way to learn about all the cars they made. If you find it in a PS1 game bargain bin somewhere check it out.
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as a technical, is in fact, GNU/Technical, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Technical.
Article is from February last year isn’t it? What happened with this?
I guess it is the year of the Linux desktop for at least some people.
I’ve used Linux desktop in various forms for just over two decades, this has to be the fourth time it felt like Linux was having its chance to seize marketshare. Each time it ends up not being the mass adoption that people hope for but it feels like the community grows each time so I think it is neat nonetheless.
Reddit does the courtesy of blocking my VPN so I am not tempted to use it and be tracked.
It is impossible to please everyone with something like this but I personally think it strikes a good balance of opinionated and thoughtful. Thanks for making this.
This is a fair point, I was being a bit facetious, but I’m sure there are plenty of teams both totally in person and totally remote using it. It is just bad optics I think. Like if Teams isn’t useful enough for them that they have to be in person despite having an ostensibly full-featured videoconferencing and calendar coordination and chat, the hell good is it for my organization?
Makes me laugh additionally because the modern conception of “dogfooding” in tech was popularized by Microsoft itself back in the 1990s. This is the opposite of dogfooding and really is a big condemnation of Teams as a software solution for connected work, at least on paper.
I feel the desire for competition to GH that the auther espouses is great, but we should not want a monocultural place that we demand everyone join like Github, and the idea that Codeberg is wrong here for not trying to become that kind of big tent is what I object to more than the technical merits of the LLM restrictions.
Aim for a fediverse highly fragmented model over a Bluesky model. Any organization can run Forgejo, why do we need to go to Codeberg?