• rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    2 hours

    the consensus seems to be that adding instructions to code that sabotage other people’s work goes too far

    Luckily, the LLM coding isnt people’s work

    • teft@piefed.socialEnglish
      2 hours

      the consensus seems to be that adding instructions to code that sabotage other people’s work goes too far

      I mean, my thought would be “Don’t fucking run code that you don’t understand”.

      • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
        53 minutes

        If we all followed that rule, we’d be using nothing more complex than an 8080.

  • BassTurd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2 hours

    I love everything about this, other than the people butthurt that their free software doesn’t like AI. I’ll give the smallest amount of criticism that it was obfuscated initially, because that’s just malware even if I think it’s justified. By clearly stating what it does, then the onus is on the user to audit the code and modify as needed. I would love to see more of this type of action to become standard practice, but just deleting the test suite isn’t quite painful enough for what I’d like to see.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3 hours

    mumble mumble “his code” mumble mumble “provided as is” mumble mumble.

  • [object Object]@lemmy.caEnglish
    2 hours

    I’d say this is only fair game if you have a no-ai policy on the readme. Otherwise you’re just being a dick.

        • GreenBeard@lemmy.caEnglish
          23 minutes

          Oh gods, not the “Think of the blind coders” just stop. Stop using the disabled as a meat-shield for reckless foolishness.