This type of thing has been generalised to "we have created the torment nexus from acclaimed book 'dont create the torment nexus'". I really do not understand what motivates engineers to rebuild things from dystopic fiction, but I think it is emblematic of the type of thinking engineers working in the advertisement industry have as well.
A sort of willful blindness to real consequence born out of a vast apathy for social impact.
I can't speak for others, but I personally built this because as a kid when I was about 10 years old, I came to terms with my own mortality and that of my loved ones for the first time and it shocked me into paranoia. I grew up seeking ways to preserve my world view past my physical time in this realm, I didn't find any suitable so I thought it best to build one since the technology is already available.
Is there any indication that it was a mini/fast/older model, or on a low effort level? My read of the reactions above is "ugh AI", not "ugh AI on the cheap". Not a single poster mentioned model or effort choice. It seems more like the usual irritation at "AI slop".
If you just mean that the result was technically incorrect or off, that's probably true, but it doesn't affect my argument.
At work I am sitting on a small pile of incomplete/wrong/missing-the-point bug reports right now, all generated by Opus 5 on High effort. Even under good conditions, LLMs are still wrong quite a lot, and confidently so. I can see why you think instant dismissal of LLM generated work is shallow, but I think it's at least as shortsighted to assume that when it creates poor quality work it must be an old/cheap model, bad settings, bad prompting, etc.
I'm not arguing that it's great. I'm arguing that the future of human work in this area will be limited to dealing with the cases when it isn't great, i.e. the pile on your desk. Choosing the best model and highest effort is the due diligence required to minimize the size of that pile.
When you make an outrageous claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. Given that there isn't a real indication of anything to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume reality is still the way it always was and humans are too.
Bridges deteriorate by default. That is a well understood process with well understood reasons, which we monitor and work against. Salt, thermal cycles, load, rust.
Humanity does not deteriorate by default. Claiming it does so through some hand-wavy pseudo-evolutionary arguments is not a strong case, and requires at least some evidence to be taken serious. How about a (equally unfounded and just for the sake of argument) reverse claim: Humanity got more intelligent, because high child mortality favored physically strong children instead of mentally strong children.
In my example, I cited microfractures and weak steel. These are not normal "deteriorate by default" methods of bridge deterioration, and have absolutely nothing to do with proper bridge construction.
They are flaws. Flaws which should never happen, separate from normal environmental degradation.
You may debate the point, but that is irrelevant, for I am referring to abnormal issues with bridges. Flaws in construction. Taking this parallel to humanity, or any evolved species, what "forges" a strong species is constantly being tempered by their environment.
Predation. Disease. Parasites. Even lack of proper nutrition. Environmental adversity, eg exposure to heat, wind, sun, etc. Reproductive errors. Reproduction issues. Etc and so forth. We've eliminated almost all of this, which means that standard methods of evolutionary pressure are almost all removed.
Species do deteriorate by default, if they remain static. Or additionally, if they allow genetic errors (which happens every generation, yes every) to seep into the gene pool without being winnowed back out by the stresses above.
These days, we save babies which are born early. Ones which have a dozen birth defects. Ones which have 100 other issues. Adults (before breeding age) with issues. Note that I am not saying we should not do these things! Only, that there is a price. A long term price.
Now... that being said, I think this is the best part of genetic engineering. It allows us to fix issues like this in the womb, and to get rid of these sorts of errors whilst still helping the current generation live, and have good lives.
But to pretend that evolutionary pressure doesn't exist, is weird. And everything we have which is an enhancement to our survival capabilities, is evolutionarily pressure based.
So back to the start? Those microfractures and weaknesses in steel are not noticeable when the bridge is deployed, as the steel's production is actually the problem. It's years later, with bridge inspections (if done! and they should be!) that these issues are discovered.
But much like global warming, or said steel, you don't want be be performing corrective action. And you can't see it before the issue becomes apparent. People didn't notice the Earth getting warmer when they were burning coal in year 1000 or some such.
We barely see the evidence of global warming now. And it's already too late to arrest some change.
Is that what you'd prefer for humanity? Wait until genetic defects are so rampant that it is "in your face" apparent?
Calling it that makes you instantly recognisable as someone who is corporate to a problematic degree. I guess it is somewhat good to be upfront about it, but I think praise is taking it too far.
The fight itself definitely would not be stupid, because words have meaning and by letting marketeers corrupt them we let them make all of society worse. The real tragedy here is that you think linguistic drift for a proximate profit motive is acceptable.
You make so many outlandish claims and outrageous statements - Oss libraries being entirely ai, you can trivially replace any Oss library with agent output, etc. It really distracts from your core question (which has a premise that doesn't seem reasonable)
Its a generalizatiom but this is a direction Im seeing. I maintain OSS project logdy.dev. Until last year around this time I saw a steady influx of github stars every week (not huge but steady enough to project next few weeks). Since then, the traction pretty much stopped. So my thinking is - in coding agents era people dont need to format their local logs since agents take care of the dev mostly. If I were to start this project again, I wouldnt do it right now since the problem wouldnt be worth solving. The economics moved. This is just my example but I guess similar things are happening out there. So, the question remains, is there a use case for niche oss projects anymore? (By niche I mean something thats not mainstream)
Even before the advent of AI the quality of most reports was depressingly low. Most of your reports will quite simply come from folks in lower-wage countries that broadly don't speak English well and that use a shotgun approach to bug bounties. That means you are receiving a lot of them, they will be hard to read (assuming the information you need is in there at all) and if they get one success out of fifty then for them it is a really good return.
The advent of LLMs has made this a hundred times worse. Both because it makes it easier for most people to create reports that sound good (and so are more effort to dissect) and because people who didn't have to work hard to get any amount of competence are usually more entitled and more rude (the stakes are even lower for them).
It is economically no longer a good idea to run a bug bounty program at all. I honestly question whether or not even having a direct input for such things makes any sense anymore. The volume is becoming so great you need a classical spam filter to plow through it. But that won't work, because they all sound reasonable.
reply