Due to some disagreements—some recent; some tolerated for close to 2 decades—with how collaboration should work, we’ve decided that the best course of action was to fork the project

Okay, that was always allowed!

Programming is the weirdest place for kneejerk opposition to anything labeled AI, because we've been trying to automate our jobs for most of a century. Artists will juke from 'the quality is bad!' to 'the quality doesn't matter!' the moment their field becomes legitimately vulnerable. Most programmers would love if the robot did the thing we wanted. That's like 90% of what we're looking for in the first place. If writing 'is Linux in dark mode?' counted as code, we'd gladly use that, instead of doing some arcane low-level bullshit. I say this as someone who has recently read through IBM's CGA documentation to puzzle out low-level bullshit.

You have to check if it works. But if it works... what is anyone bitching about?

[–] helix@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If it works it can still be worse code than if somebody had just read documentation.

Then again, dead internet theory means nobody watches what AI is "documenting" and in the future documentation will be worthless.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

"Just" read documentation, says someone assuming past documentation is accurate, comprehensible, and relevant.

I taught myself QBASIC from the help files. I still found Open Watcom's documentation frankly terrible, bordering useless. There's comments in the original Doom source code lamenting how shite the dead-tree books were.

load more comments (3 replies)