4 ms·

I can read it but not sure if worth spending energy on it. It doesn't make sense for the reader to spend more energy than the writer spent on creating it.

by hoppp 2mo ago

wild_pointer 2mo ago
PoC||GTFO, if it reproduces, it's valuable
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
  - fr2029 2mo ago
    [dead]
- smallerize 2mo ago
  Then post whatever notes were fed into the AI instead. The verbosity and self-congratulating add negative value.
  - im3w1l 2mo ago
    What will you do when the prompt was "Figure out the bug and write a report for me". Not saying it was in this particular case, but I think at least in other cases, it will be.
    - wizzwizz4 2mo ago
      It didn't figure out the bug: the report is largely nonsense. It merely did a bad impression of having figured out the bug, by stringing together several observations into something superficially resembling a narrative. Providing those observations without the gibberish framing might be useful.
      - derdi 2mo ago
        The parent's point still stands. In many cases it will have figured out the bug. In many cases it will have produced a small, clean, deterministic reproducer. In my daily work I see these cases. It does help that the bugs that are filed contain a test case and some analysis by the agent. It would not help to get ten identical bug reports all saying "I asked my agent to find a bug by prompting it with "find a bug and produce a test case". It found a nasty bug and a really nice reproducer. I'm not including its output here. Good luck!"
    - 27183 2mo ago
      > What will you do when the prompt was "Figure out the bug and write a report for me". The rational choice would be to cut your losses and stop reading at that point. Once you realize zero effort went into the prompt, there's no longer any reason to read the output. The age old truism still applies: garbage in, garbage out. If you think it's worthwhile, close the issue with a comment: "please rework this and show your work next time". Otherwise just close it without commenting and move on.
    - krupan 2mo ago
      "it will be" Trying to figure out what to do based on possible future scenarios has a place, but not here when we are talking about a concrete present problem.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      Prompt an AI to figure out the bug and write a report, of course. If that is actually useful.
  - wild_pointer 2mo ago
    That I agree with (not instead, in addition)
- inigyou 2mo ago
  They have a PoC, we're arguing about the LLM-generated slop explanation of the PoC.
  - BetterThanSober 2mo ago
    Is it actually reproducible though and do I want to chase and reproduce something that had no human touch? Do you?
    - wild_pointer 2mo ago
      If it's an actual bug, I hope the Linux devs will. It impacted a human, and it's a bug regardless of human or non-human touch. Of course, looking at a bug is a matter of priority, always has been.
- amluto 2mo ago
  In the history of Linux that I'm aware of (and I've been nose-deep in this stuff on and off for quite a while), these issues are almost never debugged because they're reproduced -- they're debugged because someone who actually understands the messy interactions of the code and hardware in question thinks about them. A reproducer might not actually be useful because there is basically no way short of fancy hardware tracing to figure out what the reproducer is doing.
agumonkey 2mo ago
> It doesn't make sense for the reader to spend more energy than the writer spent on creating it. Great way to summarize cultural "economics" Couldn't put the words on this pattern but sometimes all I care about is that someone cared about.
- PunchyHamster 2mo ago
  I usually go for "If I wanted LLM answer I'd ask LLM instead of reading your answer/article/content"
  - agumonkey 2mo ago
    But it goes beyond this. The whole 2020s era is about cheap ways to do anything and be able to stream it to billions of people. Yet I feel no density in the work because there was no energy spent on it.
    - fc417fc802 2mo ago
      It's proof of work applied to social interactions. The father back in history you go the rarer I imagine the root problem was. There's a similar conundrum with gifts. When everyone is able to order approximately anything from anywhere in the world via the internet exchanging gifts begins to feel like a bizarre ritual meant only to transfer money to businesses.
serf 2mo ago
energy might be the wrong metric, plenty of energy was wasted spinning up that LLM.
- shevy-java 2mo ago
  Yeah but the thing is that someone tries to waste time of humans. This is why I hate "interacting" with bots, scripts or AI/LLMs. It just wastes my time, again and again and again. Oddly enough not all humans understand that. About two months ago, a german developer involved with ffmpeg, spam-slopped their mailing list with AI (it was an AI proposal for some change to ffmpeg in the future). He still does not understand why that is a problem.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    I think it was GZDoom where the absentee project owner suddenly came back, pushed a bunch of nonsense AI comments, so the entire actual development community just forked it again and left him to play in his sandbox? Now it's UZDoom. Something similar happened with PolyMC to PrismLauncher but that wasn't about AI, it was an absentee owner who came back and deleted everything he said was woke.

I can read it but not sure if worth spending energy on it. It doesn't make sense for the reader to spend more energy than the writer spent on creating it.

by hoppp 2mo ago

I can read it but not sure if worth spending energy on it. It doesn't make sense for the reader to spend more energy than the writer spent on creating it.

wild_pointer 2mo ago

PoC||GTFO, if it reproduces, it's valuable

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
- fr2029 2mo ago
  [dead]
smallerize 2mo ago
Then post whatever notes were fed into the AI instead. The verbosity and self-congratulating add negative value.
- im3w1l 2mo ago
  What will you do when the prompt was "Figure out the bug and write a report for me". Not saying it was in this particular case, but I think at least in other cases, it will be.
  - wizzwizz4 2mo ago
    It didn't figure out the bug: the report is largely nonsense. It merely did a bad impression of having figured out the bug, by stringing together several observations into something superficially resembling a narrative. Providing those observations without the gibberish framing might be useful.
    - derdi 2mo ago
      The parent's point still stands. In many cases it will have figured out the bug. In many cases it will have produced a small, clean, deterministic reproducer. In my daily work I see these cases. It does help that the bugs that are filed contain a test case and some analysis by the agent. It would not help to get ten identical bug reports all saying "I asked my agent to find a bug by prompting it with "find a bug and produce a test case". It found a nasty bug and a really nice reproducer. I'm not including its output here. Good luck!"
  - 27183 2mo ago
    > What will you do when the prompt was "Figure out the bug and write a report for me". The rational choice would be to cut your losses and stop reading at that point. Once you realize zero effort went into the prompt, there's no longer any reason to read the output. The age old truism still applies: garbage in, garbage out. If you think it's worthwhile, close the issue with a comment: "please rework this and show your work next time". Otherwise just close it without commenting and move on.
  - krupan 2mo ago
    "it will be" Trying to figure out what to do based on possible future scenarios has a place, but not here when we are talking about a concrete present problem.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Prompt an AI to figure out the bug and write a report, of course. If that is actually useful.
- wild_pointer 2mo ago
  That I agree with (not instead, in addition)
inigyou 2mo ago
They have a PoC, we're arguing about the LLM-generated slop explanation of the PoC.
- BetterThanSober 2mo ago
  Is it actually reproducible though and do I want to chase and reproduce something that had no human touch? Do you?
  - wild_pointer 2mo ago
    If it's an actual bug, I hope the Linux devs will. It impacted a human, and it's a bug regardless of human or non-human touch. Of course, looking at a bug is a matter of priority, always has been.
amluto 2mo ago
In the history of Linux that I'm aware of (and I've been nose-deep in this stuff on and off for quite a while), these issues are almost never debugged because they're reproduced -- they're debugged because someone who actually understands the messy interactions of the code and hardware in question thinks about them. A reproducer might not actually be useful because there is basically no way short of fancy hardware tracing to figure out what the reproducer is doing.

agumonkey 2mo ago

> It doesn't make sense for the reader to spend more energy than the writer spent on creating it. Great way to summarize cultural "economics" Couldn't put the words on this pattern but sometimes all I care about is that someone cared about.

PunchyHamster 2mo ago
I usually go for "If I wanted LLM answer I'd ask LLM instead of reading your answer/article/content"
- agumonkey 2mo ago
  But it goes beyond this. The whole 2020s era is about cheap ways to do anything and be able to stream it to billions of people. Yet I feel no density in the work because there was no energy spent on it.
  - fc417fc802 2mo ago
    It's proof of work applied to social interactions. The father back in history you go the rarer I imagine the root problem was. There's a similar conundrum with gifts. When everyone is able to order approximately anything from anywhere in the world via the internet exchanging gifts begins to feel like a bizarre ritual meant only to transfer money to businesses.

serf 2mo ago

energy might be the wrong metric, plenty of energy was wasted spinning up that LLM.

shevy-java 2mo ago
Yeah but the thing is that someone tries to waste time of humans. This is why I hate "interacting" with bots, scripts or AI/LLMs. It just wastes my time, again and again and again. Oddly enough not all humans understand that. About two months ago, a german developer involved with ffmpeg, spam-slopped their mailing list with AI (it was an AI proposal for some change to ffmpeg in the future). He still does not understand why that is a problem.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I think it was GZDoom where the absentee project owner suddenly came back, pushed a bunch of nonsense AI comments, so the entire actual development community just forked it again and left him to play in his sandbox? Now it's UZDoom. Something similar happened with PolyMC to PrismLauncher but that wasn't about AI, it was an absentee owner who came back and deleted everything he said was woke.