I think what's more sad is someone going out of their way to NOT support the artist.

Art is, among other things, a conversation starter. If someone sees an LLM generated thing hanging in the home or office and strikes up a conversation, it goes something like: "Yeah, i saw it online and I ended up ripping it off"...or the person lies to save face (also sad).

Or, the conversation could be "Yeah, these were purchased directly from the artist...I bought them because....". (a much more interesting conversation)

Both of these evoke an emotional reaction with an interlocutor.

Thanks! Just bought 4!

Which four? (We have Beverly, where I grew up, and Garfield Park, just because it's cool looking.)

Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square (called those 2 neighborhoods home) then Summer and Caldwell Lily Pond. I spent many a summer evening under the promenade in front of the Frank Gehry Bandshell; And the Lily Pond...those posters are stunning. Really evoked a sense of place and love for the city.

Good picks. If you didn't already know, Ryan Duggan did a print series of iconic neighborhood pizza places. I've had Fox's in Beverly on my wall twice and both times I ended up having to give the print away to someone who was one-shot by it when they came to my house.

https://www.ryanduggan.com/

With both Fox’s and Milano’s, I don’t know how anyone in Beverly/Morgan Park/EP doesn’t have pizza at least twice a week.

Phrasing this as virtue signaling is a misnomer.

I see it as an effort to divest themselves of moral inequity.

And the result isn't the point: the effort and the reason for the effort, is.

This is the first iteration/calibration of a more conscientious intention.

When moral imperative is an unidentifiable road feature on the highway towards wherever the US is going...small efforts matter

Isn't this just creating more context which must be fed back into the context window?

I don't understand arguments like this.

Universal healthcare? Democratic rule of law? Affordable living wage?

Nah, I'll bang the drum of international equality for corporate malfeasance.

I believe that's a straw man fallacy.

My assertion is that an inanimate object becomes a problem when a human interacts with it.

Your attempted logical argument is that a law of nature is the same as an inanimate object.

I am not contesting that an inanimate object is the same as gravity.

I'm saying that humans make bad decisions with simple things and whine about inanimate objects and that's a very real first world problem.

Trust shouldn't be inherent in our adoption of these models.

However, constant skepticism is an interesting habit to develop.

I agree, continually asking it to justify may seem tiresome, especially if there's a deadline. Though with less pressure, "slow is smooth...".

Just this evening, a model gave an example of 2 different things with a supposed syntax difference, with no discernible syntax difference to my eyes.

While prompting for a 'sanity check', the model relented: "oops, my bad; i copied the same line twice". smh

I don't find it tiresome at all. What I was getting at was, even with constant justifications you need to remain vigilant.

Ya know, I just spun up a version of a user-driven exploration game, as an homage to the sf0.org from back in the aughts. https://irl2-production.up.railway.app/

Google auth still not hooked up, but otherwise good enough for now. And it's open source.

Ohhh interesting - thanks

I'd love to hear some commentary about my idea surrounding this problem of AI PRs.

Why not restrict the agents to writing tests only?

If the tickets are written concisely, any feature request or fix could be reduced to necessary spec files.

This way, any maintainer would be tasked with reviewing the spec files and writing the implementation.

CI is pretty good at gatekeeping based on test suites passing...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

If the problem is that we don't trust people who use AI without understanding its output, and we base the gate-keeping on tests that are written on AI, then how can we trust that output?

Isn't that the purpose of red/green refactoring though? To establish working software that expresses regression, and builds trust (in the software)?

If your premise is that people would shift to using AI to write tests they don't understand, then that's not necessarily a failing of the contributor.

The contributor might not understand the output, but the maintainer would be able to critique a spec file and determine pretty quickly if implementation would be worthwhile.

This would necessitate a need for small tickets, thereby creating small spec files, and easier review by maintainers.

Also, any PR that included a non spec file could be dismissed patently.

It is possible for users of AI to learn from reading specs.

But if agents are doing the entire thing (reading the ticket, generating the PR, submitting the PR)...then the point of people not understanding is moot.

From my experience, you can't trust the agent to do the entire thing unless you set up very heavy linters, quality control systems (e.g. SonarQube) and a long etc. of things because AI tends to produce pretty bad code: repetition, unused code, lack of structure... basically all the things that we've spent decades learning not to do. And then there is the point where you get a pretty obscure bug that you can only solve if you have a deep understanding of the code which you won't have because you delegated that to an agent.

I like agentic programming, I use it, but I review everything that the agent does and frequently spend a few cycles simply telling the agent to refactor the code because it constantly produces technical debt.

That's not helpful, because:

1: LLMs can write awful tests

2: LLMs can write very useful code, especially when they are working in well-understood areas.

Which comes down to understanding that the LLM is a tool, and it's the job of the programmer to know how to use the LLM and evaluate its output.

Thank you! Was looking for this company. Founder was high up at GitHub. Really an interesting proposition