You have to get familiar with the codebase at some point. When you are unfamiliar, in my experience, LLMs can provide help understanding it. Copying large portions of code you don’t really understand and asking for an analysis and explanation.

Not so far ago I used it on assembly code. It would have taken ages to decipher what it was doing by myself. The AI sped up the process.

But once you are very familiar with a established project you had work a lot with, I don’t even bother asking LLMs anything, as in my experience, I come up with better answers quicker.

At the end of the day we must understand that a LLM is more or less an statistical autocomplete trained on a large dataset. If your solution is not on the dataset the thing is not going to really came up with a creative solution. And the thing is not going to run a debugger on your code either, afaik.

When I use it the question I ask myself the most before bothering is “is the solution likely to be on the training dataset?” or “is it a task that can be solved as a language problem?”

I find it more useful doing large language transformations and delving into unknown patterns, languages or environments.

If I know a source head to toe, and I’m proficient with that environment, it’s going to offer little help. Specially if it’s a highly specialized problem.

Since SVB crash there have been firings left and right. I suspect AI is only an excuse for them.

The study was centered on bugfixing large established projects. This task is not really the one that AI helpers excel at.

Also small number of participants (16) , the participants were familiar with the code base and all tasks seems to be smaller in completion time can screw results.

Thus the divergence between studio results and many people personal experience that would experience increase of productivity because they are doing different tasks in a different scenario.

Sorry, all users of lemmy are my alt accounts. I can only pretend so many different personalities.

I would stop normalizing the theory that immigrants are here only to do badly paid jobs.

I’ve hear too many times “without immigrants who would work in insert miserable badly paid job?”.

Immigrants are not here to do the most miserable jobs without getting properly paid for it.

I think progressive forces should stop with that discourse. I find it a little dehumanizing. If you don’t want to do that shitty job I don’t know why anyone would think that a person, only because they are an immigrant, want to do it for you.

All downvotes in our own conversation do indicate a clear pattern, though.

You need to take into consideration those are small communities, post per month may not be that high, and post may not get a lot of engagement. If you are a mod of a small community I can see why you should check and worry about even little things. Size of the community and the threats they usually endure make it relevant I think.

After reading more of the OP I’m inclined to think that the mod actions were overly cautious. Probably they should step down a little. I’m a big fan of mods issuing warnings before a permanent ban (and with small communities it’s possible to do without getting overwhelmed). I’m starting to think that they should just message OP stating that they have seen that they had only issue downvotes in the communities and that they will need to take actions if nothing changes in the future, or something like that. Anyway, I’m thinking that ban was not justified.

Still think that people tend to be too happy with the downvote button. It has its uses, but systematic downvoting without good reasons it’s not good lemmy etiquette I think.

Fair point then, well explained.

I think ultimately I do agree with you. A few downvotes shouldn’t be a reason for a multi community permanent ban.

I don’t think it was ridiculous.

It’s not the same one single downvote than 4 downvotes without any single upvote. One downvote says nothing, several indicate a pattern.

OP says that some bans come from a single downvote. And others come from the mentioned 4 downvotes over several months. Which actually makes me question if mods banned anyone who made a single downvote, or if any other criteria was followed.

I’m not “like that” with downvotes. I mostly downvote rude people. Or maybe people with opinions I consider harmful. Any other opinion politely expressed I don’t think there’s any reason to try to preclude others to see it.

Surely I don’t see the point of downvoting a question that was only directed to you and that you have already read 😅 the intended user that needed to see that comment already did, so there was little point with the downvote, isn’t it?

The thing is, AFAIK, the ban only preclude you from voting, commenting and posting. From all of those actions it seems that only the downvote button was used. So, not much was loss.

I think the modlog message was too harsh, that’s true. And I don’t know if the ban is deserved or not.

It’s true that if there was an initial wave of bans for one downvote, and after that only the downvote button was used until the second wave, it seems unlikely that there was going to be other interactions. And if we add the factor that some other user pointed out that you may have a higher than usual upvote/downvote rate. So maybe the mods knew what they were doing.

Or maybe baning for just a few downvotes is not justified.

But what I have doubts about is why it’s so important to make this post. If it seems that you never saw anything you liked on those communities, and most of them are really small communities, some without even any posts. That’s what questions me.

I understand the mod pov and motives, their communities get frequently brigaded so they are extra (probably overly) cautious with downvote behavior of people who doesn’t engage with the community.

But I don’t really know if you want the ban revoked, if you want to actually engage with those communities in other way, or what are the intentions here.

Why did you downvoted me?

I’m just giving you information that’s already disclosed on the thread and my own unimportant opinion.

Reading other comment of both the OP and mods from that communities. Have been stated that there were multiple downvotes over the course of several months.

My point is that doesn’t seem that OP is interested in those communities anyway, not that they have interacted in any other way than downvoting. That’s why I don’t see why they are bothered for the ban. It’s not like they took them away from a community they liked or were interested in following.

After reading this thread I gather the following.

OP says they browse all and if they see content they don’t like they downvote. They say it’s not a conscious move to brigade or anything.

Some mod pointed out that for some of those communities OP only downvoted them, never upvoted a single post or contributed in any meaningful way.

I don’t even see why OP is angry with being ban from communities they obviously don’t like. I seems like those are AI communities and when OP sees an AI post on All they downvote. Why want OP those communities keep being part of their feed? Why complain for being banned if they don’t like their content.

It doesn’t make much sense to me. If I was banned of a community that makes a content that I heavily dislike and that I’m actively saying I dislike it via downvotes I wouldn’t care on the slightest. I should probably just block the community to begin with.

If some of those communities ban are not AI content communities and the ban is thus unjustified I can see an appeal to uplifting that ban. And the reason for the ban could be a little more cordial. But I really don’t know why OP wants to get unbanned from communities they don’t like. Which introduced the evident skepticism that maybe (just maybe) there is an intention, more or less focused, of just trying to negatively influence AI communities without being a part of them. Which IMHO would guarantee a ban.

I think general Fediverse etiquette is that if you see some place that does things that you don’t like that are both legal and in line with instance rule then you should just issue a personal block to that space, not trying to downvote it to affect their visibility or reputation, as other people may like that space.

Taking planes, another big CO2 contributor. The sky is full of planes burning fuel.

Browsers should probably warn if a site on which you are filling forms with personal information or payment methods have been issued with KYC or not. And clearly state to whom physical persona or enterprise that certificate was issued.

Though I worry about the barrier from many people to get those certificates and then privacy concerns. It’s a balance between privacy and democracy and fighting scams. My guess is that browsers should only warn in certain websites, but in which websites and how to detect them… That eludes me, seems complex.

Chatgpt is just enforcing 4th law of robotics.

I tried, but then it started blinking.

I have no mouth and I must scream.

It was originally published as part of a book compilation, and it was kind of hard to find a file with just that story and without typos all over the place.

4741

One small old book that used to be hard to find in good quality. I’ve it seeding for years, and being so small and in risk of being lost I’ve never taken it down.

One useful usecase that’s being exploited a lot is roleplay.

Using AI to generate a bot to do a roleplay with and maybe images to add flavour. It’s something that people like to do, and that’s totally harmless.

Like, yes, the llm was trained the books of grrm without his explicit consent and now someone is roleplay a fantasy scenario with John Snow, but who cares?

It’s not like GRRM is available to be hired as a play partner, and no one is getting profit out of it, specially if people just selfhost the models. People is just having fun. And the AI is not substituting anyone. As people didn’t hire “actors” to play their roleplay sessions anyway.

And it’s not like people who use it it like this even post the results in social media and call themselves “AI artist” or anything like that. They just play for themselves or their group of friends, and, at most you can share online the “bot card” so others can use it.

Many people don’t care about it. Me included, for instance.

I would give the reason why but I don’t know if anyone is truly interested in knowning.

I don’t consider things being made by AI as something terrible. If the post is fine I upvote and comment like any other post. If the content is lazy, clickbaity or plain bad then it’s bad. But if it’s good I don’t care that it was produced using some AI tool or other.

It’s true that the fediverse it’s still hostile towards AI conversation (this very comment have high possibilities to be drowned with downvotes) but I’m glad the general stance is changing little by little. I hope in a few years the hostility would be much more marginal, specially if the fediverse keeps growing and more people with more diverse opinions come in.

I like to talk about topics, seeing different opinions about it, and when everyone have the same opinion the discussion is not really interesting. With AI, it’s something new that sparks a lot of though process about may topic. For instance the morality of it, or the limits, trying to find the gray areas between the black and the white. It can be very interesting, and I’m glad, little by little we can start talking about it.