3 ms·

Developers feel the end times coming - out the pitchforks for any mention of AIs. Reading the article it does not seem to be an auto-generated AI bug report - n

Developers feel the end times coming - out the pitchforks for any mention of AIs. Reading the article it does not seem to be an auto-generated AI bug report - nevertheless the pitchforks are out and the mob is even infiltrating unrelated bug threads on a different project to burn the heretic. The end times are coming.

axman6 1y ago
After reading through the relevant threads, I'm completely on the side of the LLVM CoC committee, this user is just wasting their time. Asking for minimal steps to reproduce an issue is the bare minimum for report issues on open source projects, it is not the job of the developers to show that there is an issue, particularly when some of them attempt to do that, and are also unable to do so. The AI content in the LLVM and Mesa threads was actively misleading, confidently stating absolute nonsense, not even close to anything that was true, but still 100% confident. It's misinformation, bordering on disinformation. It actually reminds me of the the [OSS Sabotage book](https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...)'s section on General Interference with Organizations and Production (page 28): (11) General Interference with Organizations and Production (a) Organizations and Conferences (1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments. (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. (7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. (8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision—raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

axman6 1y ago

After reading through the relevant threads, I'm completely on the side of the LLVM CoC committee, this user is just wasting their time. Asking for minimal steps to reproduce an issue is the bare minimum for report issues on open source projects, it is not the job of the developers to show that there is an issue, particularly when some of them attempt to do that, and are also unable to do so. The AI content in the LLVM and Mesa threads was actively misleading, confidently stating absolute nonsense, not even close to anything that was true, but still 100% confident. It's misinformation, bordering on disinformation. It actually reminds me of the the [OSS Sabotage book](https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/...)'s section on General Interference with Organizations and Production (page 28): (11) General Interference with Organizations and Production (a) Organizations and Conferences (1) Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. (2) Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments. (3) When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—never less than five. (4) Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible. (5) Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions. (6) Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision. (7) Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on. (8) Be worried about the propriety of any decision—raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.