who is funding this? who gets to decide? the real.issue is, there has always been slop submissions but the barrier of entry wa shigh so few people in civilization had the skill and fewer even attempted to submit. now every si gle person alive can submit. its not an anti llm stance uts "how do i manage this side gig i dont get paid for" stance
who is funding this?
Hopefully some non profit
who gets to decide?
By some new standards community that isn't biased towards corporate
the real.issue is, there has always been slop submissions but the barrier of entry wa shigh so few people in civilization had the skill and fewer even attempted to submit. now every si gle person alive can submit.
That is what I am hoping my idea would solve
I always mean opensource, openweight models not OpenAI/Anthropic/X-AI crap
Honest question: is it even possible to separate oneself completely from AI's multifaceted exploitation by using "FOSS AI"?
And if yes, does such ethically acceptable "FOSS AI" exist?
What is the problem that this would solve?
drown out the slop. If a slop kiddie makes a 600+ diff PR, you can safely ignore it, but if a license holder makes a PR you consider it.
How do you identify a "slop kiddie"? It's not like LLM users identify themselves as such.
You'll have to judge by their code, at which point you're already not ignoring them at all.
in my mind a slop kiddie is no different than a script kiddie, both use the tools they have found with no understanding of how it works, both rarely contribute anything meaningfully new.
as such there are tells, of course I am not suggesting we ignore every anonymous PR, but the ones that broadly fit into certain patterns
how does this compare with something like the vouch system, possibly with some sort of federated mechanism, so you could choose which list of users to trust
It might discourage new contributors and create a sort of chicken and egg situation, also a vouch system has the inherent risks of being camped by bots
I think having to get a cert is even worse.
and some will get camped by bots, but that's fine since different projects have different tolerances for contribution quality. I'm thinking like the bluesky moderation system, where each repo can subscribe to a particular pool of vouches in addition to their own. you may have lists for no ai, lists for responsible ai/abides by repo rules, or good intentioned but pure ai and minimal human contribution.
Great idea. Bureaucracy and reducing human ability to a single score is always the right process for assuring quality.
Hey, if we don't democratize the ability to get that single score some corporate will start charging money to do it and in a few years that will become the standard
democratize
🤣
Hey man, I understand it doesnt often feel this way, but yes bureaucracy IS an implementation of democracy.
Food standards, water standards, data protection laws, environmental laws, building standards, etc...
are all bureaucracy by the people to protect the people.
What kind of criteria or tests are you imagining?
A certificate after a test would only show capability, not continued practice. So my confidence in it wouldn't be very high. Demonstrated practice seems more applicable than some cert some time ago. Some people chase certs to check boxes rather than prove or apply the practice.
What kind of criteria or tests are you imagining?
I am imagining a sandbox environment where the test taker is provided with a medium tier capable LLM, and they are given tasks things like
I am sure more experienced people would lay out more scenarios to test for
A certificate after a test would only show capability, not continued practice. So my confidence in it wouldn’t be very high. Demonstrated practice seems more applicable than some cert some time ago. Some people chase certs to check boxes rather than prove or apply the practice.
True, but then again a guarantee that the person knows what they are doing is better than no guarantee at all
If you're competent, you don't use LLMs.
So I don't see the purpose.
Maybe a year ago. Not today.
Don't you have something better to do with your life than spam obscure corners of the internet with your aggresively ignorant opinon on this subject? You have no expertise or experience in the matter, why are you so confident in your opinion on it?
Idealists believe that ideas shape reality, so they fake confidence to try convincing others that whatever they want is already real.
According to idealism, the thing they want is then supposed to magically appear when enough people believe it to be real.
And when that inevitably doesn't work, they blame the people that called them out on their fake claims, for not believing hard enough.
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev