North Rhine Westphalia Police said the robot’s 16-year-old owner and his companion, 19, are believed to have streamed the incident live on social media and commented on it.

The mailing list change the article is referring to: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/

I wonder if the original rule was too broad and it was leading to noise? I’d prefer to have attribution when code is written, but not in all cases

If someone uses an LLM to brainstorm or track down a bug, then confirms it and writes the fix by hand, adding attribution might end up being noise.

Meanwhile if someone uses the LLM to write the fix, then that should get attribution

That quote was someone else

“LLMs are good enough now,” said Greg Kroah-Hartman, a veteran Linux kernel maintainer, at the Linux Foundation’s Open Source Summit in South Korea in August. “They’ve gotten good enough to find bugs because LLMs, AI, are just pattern matchers and code is nothing but patterns in a specific format.”

Also to be fair, that quote is about finding bugs and the guy might not have been talking about using AI to patch them. The article makes it sound that way, but the article also seems overly confident and pro-AI about some other things too.

You can deterministically find something that is clearly defined, but bugs don’t fall into that category

Smart picked the same Paris show where it revealed its first two-seater concept 30 years ago

TIL its that old

Does it prevent the initial .gitignore from being commited too?

For example, what if a file name had sensitive information. It’s bad practice, but someone might want to ignore the file while also hiding the ignore rule itself.

/test/fake-person-first-last.json
/test/real-person-first-last.json

Someone might want to selectively omit the second file while keeping the first, but not show what they are hiding.

For reference, to anyone that might misunderstand

[email protected] has 136 subscribers

If you are subscribed to a historymemes community, its likely a different one: https://lemmyverse.net/communities?query=historymeme&order=subscribers

I recommend this site to compare all the apps across various platforms

https://www.lemmyapps.com/

I think Interstellar and Voyager are available on both android and Linux

Personally I would suggest picking different apps on each, since it’s all the same backend data. A mobile focused app may not behave as nicely on desktop.

You can likely also run some of the alternative UIs as PWAs or full apps, but I haven’t explored that yet

https://fedecan.ca/en/guide/threadiverse/alternative-uis

It depends on how the person is sharing the image.

If they upload it directly or link to the image file on a website that supports it, then it will appear nicely. Otherwise you might need to click on it in order to see it

Oh wow that’s embarrassing, I must have been saying it wrong this whole time.

I’m sorry about the other errors as well, I blame being tired while trying to get the shields.io icons working through trial and error. They don’t have the best support for alternative git platforms: https://shields.io/badges/gitea-forks

I think it should all be fixed now: https://fedecan.ca/en/guide/threadiverse/alternative-uis#mlmym

I love elephants and I really hope that Botswana finds some other way to handle their concerns, but I wouldn’t be quick to ignore them outright.

I know how lucky I am to live where I live, and don’t want to ignore the difficulties of the poorer people living there. It would be easy for me to criticize how they choose to feed themselves when I don’t have to worry about that myself.

Take trophy hunting for example. I am a lot more critical of the rich hunters that travel there to kill the animals, than the local governments that use the money to keep their communities safe/alive. I would 100% support alternative industries that can eliminate trophy hunting for them, even financially if the stores near me are selling ethically produced goods. I would also criticize them for choosing trophy hunting over a promising alternative. But until that’s the case, the surrounding context is important.

I wrote that line 😄

The situation was still ongoing at the time of that change, and I figured that a new user doesn’t want to read a bunch of lore if they’re just there to pick a UI. Anyone that is curious can ask here or simply search for it

Your instance runs the following

https://m.lemmy.zip/

https://blorp.lemmy.zip/home

https://a.lemmy.zip/lemmy.zip

https://old.lemmy.zip/

You can read more about it on this page:

https://fedecan.ca/en/guide/threadiverse/alternative-uis

I don’t think it would work out well for americans, not that this administration cares though. They might do it regardless

Unless they can get other countries to stop using the local models, American companies will have a much harder time competing if everyone else can use cheaper and more efficient models while they need to use expensive american ones.

I don’t disagree but I’m curious what government regulation can do to create that moat? What are they trying to get out of the recent fearmongering, I can’t figure out what the end goal is

I love it 😄

This was a problem in [email protected] and they’ve done a good job of dealing with it. You could take a look at that past discussion to see what worked / what didn’t.

IMO there is an organized effort behind some of these new accounts pushing AI projects, and you need to deal with it in some form to stop them from coming

I don’t really see why environmental policy shouldn’t be mentioned in the contribution policy. If it’s there as the justification for why a part of the policy exists and it is accurate about what the environmental impacts actually are, it seems to fit in fine within the policy? Not wanting the point there doesn’t make KDE pro-AI (since they might just want to mention it elsewhere), but it is valid criticism if they don’t acknowledge it anywhere.

However I do feel that the other points in the post are weaker. KDE’s stance is in line with what the SFC recommends when it comes to AI in FOSS, specifically around contributions. I came across the SFC recommendations a while back and it’s held up well in similar discussions so far: https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html

Devs rejecting any notion of transparency by disclosing AI usage in code submissions

I don’t think they rejected the transparency part? I agree that transparency is necessary. Rather their reply is telling the commenter to not shun people. Both of those points are reflected in the SFC recommendations (point 5 on disclosure and point 3 on shunning)

And all of this is coming right after the debacle with an AI slop project being allowed to give a presentation at Akademy, and the person asking how this was allowed being blocked by KDE

I get the feeling that KDE does not curate much of anything, for better or for worse. There is a good bit of content in the KDE ecosystem that is outdated or straight up shovelware.

On top of that, Akademy is a conference that is intended for discussion, rather than a presentation about KDE.

Akademy features a 2-day conference with presentations on the latest KDE developments, followed by 4 days of workshops, Birds of a Feather (BoF) and coding sessions. It is an opportunity to meet key KDE contributors, learn about the latest features and enjoy the great atmosphere. You will meet developers, artists, translators, upstream and downstream maintainers, users, and free and open software industry leaders from all over the world

It wouldn’t work well if they had to curate every presentation at such an event. It is indeed deceitful to imply that the presenter is going to change the direction of KDE if in reality they rarely contribute and have little say in the direction of KDE. Also IMO it’s good that they let that guy participate in the conversation because it let everyone else raise points about why the idea is bad.

The difference is that every form of domestic abuse is awful and should face zero tolerance, whereas with “AI tools” there is still nuance in what that phrase means.

Even if we talk specifically about generative AI, there are models trained on only licensed data, and it’s possible to train and run models locally for the specific tasks that it is good for. The end of the day, it is an algorithm and there are some tasks that it is better at doing.

The point the other user is making is that a contribution policy should take those factors into account.

IMO a more effective principled stance would be to ban the use of specific “AI” tools that are proven to be abusive.

He made another statement earlier this week on social media, which didn’t go as well. I think today was the first concert since the controversy began, so that could explain the timing / audience of this one.

Now it comes down to what he does differently moving forward

The intro is as follows, but the article is short and the full details are helpful to know

Brazil’s Supreme Court is in the throes of an unprecedented crisis. Sessions are being canceled. Justices are overruling one another’s decisions. And suspicions of graft, political bias and police interference loom over several of its members ahead of the country’s presidential election in October.

The justices at the heart of the crisis are perceived as being at opposing ends of Brazil’s polarized political spectrum. Next month, incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is expected to face off with Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former President Jair Bolsonaro, in what is likely to be a close election, as it was four years ago.

The court met Tuesday to discuss whether one of the justices should be investigated for corruption.