2 ms·
That readme is obviously AI generated. I’m happy for anything this historical being open sourced, but I now wonder what the AI has done to the code itself. What
by LeoPanthera 1y ago
That readme is obviously AI generated. I’m happy for anything this historical being open sourced, but I now wonder what the AI has done to the code itself. What a shame.
- NitpickLawyer 1y agoWell, we can be pretty sure it didn't touch comments :) > 12/1/77 FIXED PROBLEM WHERE PROBLEM WITH VARTXT=LINNUM=BUF-2 CAUSING BUF-1 COMMA TO DISAPPEAR
- ocdtrekkie 1y agoI assume AI only generated the readme file. But I would say if AI boilerplate eases Microsoft releasing more of their old code to the public, I am okay with that. Microsoft recently closed a 7 year old .NET documentation bug I opened using Copilot. I am not a fan of AI but the submitted fix was far superior to the basically useless message that had been previously present, so net positive. At being ignored for 7 years, it was unlikely to get better from human effort.
- LeoPanthera 1y agoI wouldn't assume that at all. If they're using AI for something as trivial as a readme, I think it is a very safe assumption that that's not all they're using it for. I wish code repos had a "contaminated by AI" flag.
- DonHopkins 1y agoWhy do you have any reason to believe AI generated any of the 6502 code? What possible reason or motivation could there be for that? Wouldn't it spoil the entire reason for releasing it, totally miss the point of releasing original historic code? Who might possibly benefit by doing that? Are you just making up baseless conspiracy theories or do you have any factual basis for that accusation? Seems hypocritical for a human being to hallucinate a conspiracy theory about LLMs, with no evidence whatsoever.
- pjmlp 1y agoThey now have OKRs to use AI everywhere, even .NET tooling is getting AI tainted.