Long, rich, and sourced piece. Or why the current gold rush aims at accelerating wealth accumulation of a few to the expense of everyone else. If the plans work as intended, the outcome won't look good.

This piece asks a very profound question in fact. If you're in a workplace where senior management allows and pushes everyone to get deluded about the real capabilities of those tools, how do you later move forward and rebuild trust?

There's really something nasty at play. Those coding agents are clearly not insulated from the system enough and to easy to manipulate to exfiltrate sensitive information.

A good primer on the main architecture traits of transformer models.

Indeed the trend wasn't new. It's "just" the icing on the cake from the enclosure point of view.

Indeed, if the rsync maintainer can't handle a coding assistant properly... who can?

When Amnesty International feels like it has to publish a 44 pages briefing pointing out what's wrong with your approach and business... it'd be nice to pay attention.

Very interesting take. This gives very valid ground on why tech communities should reject AI based contributions. Not doing so will indeed hinder the commons communities rely on to exist and improve. This is a path to prevent getting better at inclusivity and diversity (which is really needed).

This is clearly the Ouroboros moment in our industry. People pushing for such restructuring and layoffs are drinking the kool-aid and will ultimately be responsible for killing what put them there in the first place.

I mean, with the announced productivity gains of generative AI... It doesn't feel like a big ask. 😜

Interesting point... Didn't think about it this way. We'll see I guess. Maybe human made services will actually get a premium rate indeed. Wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess?

This is a fact I don't get... people are going their way to satisfy the need of a LLM but not the ones of fellow humans. I guess it's the conclusion which is somewhat right, it's about who has power. This is sad if true... also I doubt it's the single explanation.

Or why most of the studies we see out there can't be trusted. They're full of holes and flaws. We'd really know people who know what they do in humanities to conduct such studies to get a chance at a proper picture.

Ultimately, they just want people to stay on the pages they fully control and not have them visit anything out of their mall.

Good overview of why we don't see a speed up in development processes when AI tools are introduced. The bottlenecks don't magically get destroyed.

As if research wasn't already having a quality problem in submitted papers... now thanks to people jumping on LLMs to churn out papers faster, this quality is cratering.

Which means simpler models: and this is fine for most use! It's also easier to have more ethical options with the smaller and more specialised models. Let's not forget they exist even though the big industrial complex would like people to forget.

This feels a bit too realistic for my taste... and yet... Well this piece of satire is well crafted I'd say.

This piece is strongly worded but the logic is sound. We see many examples of power plays in guise of "innovation" which lead to killing openly sharing (and so killing real innovation). It's urgent to fight back and ensure things stay open.

It totally makes sense. If you're a FOSS project you have to invest in getting more long term contributors, which requires mentoring. The contributions themselves are not something to maximise. I wish more communities would follow that path.