Zeichnet die Petition gegen die Abschaffung des Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes!
https://weact.campact.de/petitions/spd-stoppt-den-frontalangriff-auf-die-informationsfreiheit
Remote
Hans Hübner
@hanshuebner@mastodon.social
mastodon 4.8.0-nightly.2026-10-06I was born with a QWERTY keyboard in my mouth.
#lisp #xml #retrocomputing
1036 Followers
504 Following
50 Posts
Joined October 15, 2017
blog:
QBone now has a web interface and a DELQA Ethernet emulation. 2.11BSD happily talks to the internet. #retrocomputing #pdp
We're running in circles: Back in the time sharing days, developers were by-and-large limited by the amount of computer time they or their employer could afford. Minicomputers and PC's fundamentally changed that, and for the last 20 years, most applications could comfortably be developed on cheap personal hardware. With AI, we're back to where we were 40 years ago.
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Jul 31st 2026 (Tricky), in less than 10 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Jul 29th 2026 (Tricky), in less than 12 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
Replying to
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Jul 30th 2026 (Tricky), in less than 25 minutes
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
Replying to
@jmax @flooper I think I'm with you. The difficult part of LLMs for code generation for me is that the bullshit is executable. I can and do dismiss AI "prose", "art" and "music" easily because it is devoid of what makes me want to consume the thing in the first place. Code is primarirly consumed by machines, however, and its primary purpose is the functionality that it provides. That sets it apart from other slop.
Replying to
@flooper @plexus You can certainly define "quality" so that what you wrote is true. I know of enough "successful" software that was "successful" without having "good quality" on the inside. "Success" is something that many people would associate with "quality", so there you have the definition that I was talking about.
I believe that disussions around quality that don't consider users is worthless. The connection between external and internal quality less tight than some make it appear.
It is so annoying that macOS still scare mongers me with a notification message when I unplug an external disk without unmounting. Why does it not flush quickly by default? Why does it not attempt to figure out whether there _was_ any unflushed data instead of pestering me every time I do the thing that did not cause me any harm, in years?
Replying to
Replying to
piece of cake
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Apr 16th 2026 (Tricky), in 04:33
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
Replying to
Replying to
@grishka Right on, and then consider that with the traditional mode of writing software, the cost of creating something that is good is very high.
I'd argue that with faster (machine assisted) software creation, it is easier to meet the need of users because the cost of change is drastically reduced. I'm experiencing that with those system that I'm currently writing that way.
The whole argument that software written by humans is better does not bear any merit for me.
Replying to
@javahippie Man soll ja nicht mit Dummheit erklären, was auch einfach nur Boshaftigkeit sein kann!
Replying to
@flooper I'm going off my own experience, which is some 40 years as a programmer and 1.5 years of working with LLMs. From that, I can only conclude that code writing is over. I don't do it unless I want to, but it is not economical and there is no tangible benefit to doing so.
This does not mean that studies which find LLM projects to have quality issues are invalid. The reason, though, is not that LLMs cannot write code, but that software engineering with LLMs requires different processes.
Replying to
Replying to
@mknoszlig@hachyderm.io I totally agree. And I certainly hope that this happens before any of the huge CO2 sinks that put this technology into existence amortize themselves. Just out of pure spite :D
tripped AGAIN
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Apr 23rd 2026 (Tricky), in 04:23
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟨🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
tripped
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Apr 21st 2026 (Easy), in 05:59
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Apr 20th 2026 (Easy), in 03:36
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
Replying to
@gregrorio Your criticism of LLMs seems to be rooted in how they were created and who runs them. Those are valid points, but claiming that, as a result, the output of LLMs is unfit for any purpose, is just nonsense. Repeating that or making such claims in an angry or declarative tone or telling anyone how disagrees that they're peddling propaganda is intellectual garbage.
If you can reject using LLM technology because you are not in a field of intellectual work, consider yourself lucky.
Replying to
@ArneBab My experience with copyleft licenses over the last decades is that they're just an annoyance and don't actually protect user or programmer freedom. They serve those that use them to preserve their beliefs, but that is it.
Replying to
Replying to
@dalias@hachyderm.io @plexus@toot.cat I'm just a software developer. What I write comes from my personal experience writing software with Claude Code. Do you have any experience you can share? What are your credentials?
Replying to
@plexus @flooper simplicity. And simplicity has become a primary quality in the recent years, as you know.
This teaches us that resentment to technology within the technology field is very much bound to the time period in which it occurs, and to common habits.
It is tempting to interleave social and technological critique, but I'd argue that it is often not leading to a very focused conversation. 2/2
Replying to
@flooper In the end, it is the outcomes that matter. Who cares whether human teams would have created better outcomes if they had adopted good software engineering practices, when machine-generated solutions fit the requirements and do the work cheaper? Who, other than the people that are out of a job now, of course.
We programmers thought we were special and needed, and now we are not. Or maybe it is just a matter of us adapting to the new tools.
Replying to
@flooper I don't see how Fowler's quote asserts that code "will still be consumed [...] by humans". Nothing in that quote says that it would, and from my experience, there is no need to actually read LLM written code in order to ensure that they work.
You seem to want to imply that LLM written code can only function if a human has read and approved it, which is not true. But maybe I misunderstood.
You also seem to want to imply that LLM code is not maintainable. What makes you think so?
sigh
I solved the daily #CluesBySam, Apr 22nd 2026 (Medium), in 05:03
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟨🟩
https://cluesbysam.com
Replying to
Replying to
@ArneBab I'm not attached to the code that I wrote over that I wrote over the course of my life. Some of it was good, much of it was not, and in the end, I enjoyed the process of writing it.
You seem to be rather bitter about the fact that you don't control what is done with what you've created. I'm not.
Replying to
@flooper Now that you could not explain why what you wrote before (Fowler says writing code well for humans to read is hard) is proof for your claim that only code read by humans can be good, you come up with one study that claims LLM coding agents are because Copilot did not work in a sample set.
I'm not going to be able to challenge your beliefs, but gladly I don't need to.
Replying to
@pascal_costanza @jesse You win some, you lose some. Probabilistic development may be less predictable, but that is just a trade-off. It is not that traditional software development was predictable either. Some of that non-predictability comes from external sources (e.g. human interaction dynamics, time and resource constraints) that does not exist in probabilistic development in the same way.
Replying to
@gregrorio What is your point? What am I "assuming" when I write that in my experience, using LLMs to write software is more efficient than me writing it myself? Do you have any contribution to the conversation to make, or are you just venting?
Replying to
@ariaflame @Ardubal If it is me that you're referring to, then no: I don't "assume" that LLMs are more efficient than humans writing code, I'm convinced that they are. Most code writing is repetetive text creation, and I have no doubt that LLMs are better than humans at that.
Replying to
Replying to
@ariaflame Responding with an insult and the unwillingless to continue a debate shows character. Chapeau.
Replying to
@me_@sueden.social @brouhaha@mastodon.social I would swap the J11 for a Tang Nano 5V interposer board :)
Replying to
@gregrorio I don't call for surrender, but in any case: It is difficult to make a choice if you want to live in a world in which virtually all products are created in an unethical fashion. From that perspective, dismissing LLMs is an understandable choice.
Claiming that what is being created with their help, however, has inherent flaws, is "worse" than what humans create and will eventually stop to work is just not a viable position.
Replying to
@ArneBab You are angry about that, because you believe in licenses. I do not. I believe that claiming that licenses protect freedom is a pretty far-fetched idea.
Replying to
@io Thank you! I'm glad that you liked it. I will probably write another one, given the progress I have made. The Northstar now boots from CP/M from a Rasperry Pi Pico connected to its parallel port. It is pointless, but good fun. :)