Flathub has replaced its blanket ban on AI-generated applications with a disclosure requirement. Reviewers can still reject submissions, and manifests remain off-limits for AI-generated content.
Flathub has replaced its blanket ban on AI-generated applications with a disclosure requirement. Reviewers can still reject submissions, and manifests remain off-limits for AI-generated content.
I’m weary of the slippery slope fallacy embedded in your reply, I’m not sure if using some AI often results quality to fall out the window.
Also I don’t really trust any new projects to be maintained for a long time, unless I trust the developer(s) have a clear commitment to supporting it in the long term.
this project (configarr) is one I’ve been using in myself-hosted setup clearly uses AI to help with development, although I’m not sure to what extent. It’s been maintained consistently for 2 years.
Avoiding using brand new programs has worked quite well for me not being left with unmaintained software so far.
nope. apologies but you have stepped on a pet peeve of mine.
the slippery slope fallacy is someone saying: don’t allow a1 because if we allow a1 then a2 will happen and we don’t want a2 so we must prohibit a1.
the slippery slope fallacy is not someone saying: a naturally trends towards a2 and a2 would be a problem so we should avoid passing a*2.
for example, the slippery slope fallacy was committed when people used to say that letting consenting adults legally marry each other would inevitably lead to people legally marrying animals. it is not committed when, for example, people say that americans should at some point put a limit on how big their trucks are getting since the short term incentives all push in that direction despite the fact that more and more people keep dying. do you understand?
saying that it is easy to slip further and further into leaning on llms in the way i described is both observably true and actively what the companies selling the product (with all of their vast resources) are aiming to achieve. that is the [if the short term incentives will foreseeable move us from a to a^2] part of this. the other part of this is that i believe that a future where projects are truly vibe coded (no human reviewing the code) is not one where that software is maintained in the long term [a^2 isn’t desirable] and it seems you agree on that part.
i am not saying that if people follow the short term incentives and move towards using llms more that next they will ‘get lazy’ (to use your word) with cooking too and start putting too much salt and oil in their food to try to quickly make it taste better. not a1 -> a2 but a -> a*2 -> a2. not only that but also i am not calling for banning a at all. i am saying that because a2 is undesirable let’s stop at a*2 (“…/truly/ checking the output the same way [we] would scrutinize [code written by an intern we don’t trust].”) because that is the point that i believe delineates (broadly) positive vs negative outcomes in the long term.
all of that to say, even if you don’t agree with me on generative ai, i hope you now know how to correctly identify that fallacy in the future.
Humans are lazy as long as AI is affordable and that is a big if right now more and more people well use it for more and more things. How many people remwbmwr phone numbers or directions anymore?