It depends on the definition of “AI”.

If you mean "artificial intelligence, then you’re completely wrong because it doesn’t exist.

But, if you mean the vague group of technologies currently lumped together under the grift called “AI”, then yes they’re probably here to stay - although it’s hard to generalize across an imaginary marketing category.

I went Sublime -> VSCode -> Kate and I’m definitely not going backwards.

On Linux I tried the fltapak versio of VSCodium. It was very slow to load and constantly crashed. At work I’m forced to use Windows, but I still prefer Kate over VSCode. I might be biased by my hatred for Microsoft, but Kate works great for me.

I’m open to trying other open source editors/ides. From this post it sounds like genie might be cool. But I’m generally happy with Kate so unlikely to try something else.

Oh no the lib perspective… What’s the bottom line? Buy or sell? \s

Code is a tool, not a problem.

If you’re using quotes around your own terms and preemptively closing any discussion about it, then you’ve already lost.

Stop feeding the grift with this nonsense.

There is no definition of “AI”. It’s all bullshit. It doesn’t exist.

The supposed difference between these two unstated definitions is a difference of scale not of kind. There is no objective dividing line for moderation.

There’s no such thing as “AI”. Nothing to disclose.

Even if there were something to disclose, people don’t know how much of their dependencies were computer generated. It’s a purity test.

But all apps should be vetted for malware, etc.

Check how much technological research in USA is funded by the Dept of Defense… Basically all of it.

https://www.executivegov.com/articles/pentagon-funding-autonomous-weapons-hegseth-50-billion

Have we been running insecure software since the arrival of AI?

No, “AI” doesn’t exist and software has been insecure since it was invented.

Has anyone had this sensation and if so has anyone linked this to AI finding more holes in OSS that would have normally been found by human scrutiny?

A major point of automated security checks is that humans didn’t find these vulnerabilities and might never have found them without computational aids.

does it mean that we have been running insecure software all along?

Yes, 10000%. Security is a complete illusion even with automated checks. If an organization has enough time and money (eg. state surveillance), they will hack whatever they want to hack.

!the_big_lai@lemmy.dbzer0.com

You’ll still have vulnerabilities in your dependencies.

What if someone does a copy/paste of a code snippet from a google search and then modified it for their own purposes?

According to the grifters, this is “AI” but it’s not and nobody cares. There is no boundary for something that doesn’t exist (“AI”). That’s fundamental to the grift.

Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical?

No, because there’s no such thing as “AI”. It’s irrational to try to remove something that doesn’t exist. People will continue using computers to compute regardless.

On the other hand I don’t think developers should accept slop. I guess that’s what “responsible” means.

Imagine being this mad at gimp. lmao

Just more bullshit hype. This project will go nowhere.

https://loops.video/

Pixelfed already allows video posts. That’s enough for me.

If you want a client that automatically filters pics from vids, that’s completely possible within the open source environment. I think it would be a nice feature.

Agreed. I tend to write one-liners that I don’t want to re-parse myself later, much less force someone else to parse. A simple comment can be a major help and time saver for everybody.

Well compared to EpsteinOS…

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230491/microsofts-september-updates-fix-a-record-973-security-flaws.html

Meanwhile under EpsteinOS…

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230491/microsofts-september-updates-fix-a-record-973-security-flaws.html

People are “seriously” hyping up like 3 dozen patches to Linux.