Source?

Nobody want vibecode slop.

Neither does the author

Did you review the code in question and end up rating it slop, or are you just reflexively calling anything AI-generated slop?

Humans can produce garbage code. As can AI. So therefore the process around the code matters, and it seems clear to me the author has had a reasonable process around the code, as opposed to blindly accepting some 1-shotted output.

To me this looks like good use of AI.

It's LLM-generated, therefore slop. It does not need more investigation. A human did not produce it so it's not worth my time.

Do you consider everything generated by an LLM to be slop, regardless of the quality of the work?

Yes. Anything LLM generated is automatically, irrevocably, slop. Does not matter if you rewrite by hand every single line of it, still slop.

That is not what slop means, though. You're redefining the meaning of the word to suit your view. Why do that? You can just say that LLM generated content is not up to par, or acceptable, ever.

Slop means anything produced en masse with complete disregard for truth, accuracy, or usefulness. Anyone trying to say "but my slop isn't slop, I vetted it" clearly is not in possession of the necessary critical thinking skills to differentiate between slop and non-slop.

> Slop means anything produced en masse with complete disregard for truth, accuracy, or usefulness.

This doesn't match at all with what the author described in the article.

> Anyone trying to say "but my slop isn't slop, I vetted it" clearly is not in possession of the necessary critical thinking skills to differentiate between slop and non-slop.

This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.

> This doesn't match at all with what the author described in the article.

What the author describes are all the usual defenses of LLM slop, all the usual weasel words that boil down to "But I'm different and smart, my slop isn't slop."

> This is called a Kafkatrap. It works in any direction, in any situation, making the disagreement moot. Also not considered good faith rhetoric.

Applying a label to my reasoning to discredit it is also not done in good faith, and simultaneously does not make it any less true.

LLM slop is fundamentally a "what color are your bits" kind of situation. And you cannot, in any way, ship-of-theseus it away from slop.

I'm not saying your actual point couldn't be valid or fully defensible, just to be clear.

My view is that there are people capable of vetting LLM generated code, and people who are not capable of it, based on their previous track record of vetting non-LLM generated code and the quality of their own non-LLM generated code.

For example: I would trust the capability of John Carmack to vet an LLM generated bug fix, to his own game engine. Even if it was LLM generated by him, and vetted by him.

I have to say it is interesting to watch anti-LLM sentiments approach the same religious fervour as pro-LLM sentiments. No grey, no nuance, no compromise, regardless of what the facts of the matter are.

So this is the hill we die on

Is it possible to tell slop from non slop if you were not there when the tokens get emitted? Somebody can just lie and pretend that they were not generated

Not always, but the sloperator has to pass it off as human-made every time, and the defenders only need to detect slop once.

He didn't

Yes he did, it was LLM-generated, therefore slop.

Your comments come across more sloppy than that. You're not applying any critical thought.

I have given plenty of critical thoughts to come to the conclusion I have. You mistake my unwillingness to write a dissertation on why slop is slop for not having a well-reasoned position.

This website is full of people with a financial vested interested in never accepting that slop is slop, so there's no convincing them.

I would have put Coder Radio on this list but ever since Mike took over without Chris the show has lost its appeal for me.

And sadly, there are no more Jupiter Broadcasting shows left without crypto or mostly inside baseball.

Anyone know of shows in the category of two or three lads discussing computing, coding, devops, but in the style of two older guys crumudging that everything used to be better in the old days?

I love 2.5 Admins.

The rest of Late Night Linux is okay too.

> so wouldn't you accomplish HA without the pseudocontroller by just putting both pods in the Service?

I'm not sure how fast that would be, the extra controller container is needed for the almost instant failover.

Answering your second question, why not an init container in the secondary, because now we can scale that failover controller up over multiple nodes, if the node where the (fairly stateless) controller runs goes down, we'd still have to wait until k8s schedules another pod instead of almost instantly.

Would they work as performant and use the same amount of (less, almost nothing) resources? I've ran mosquito clusters with tens of thousands of connected clients, thousands of messages per second, on 2 cores and 2GB of ram, while mostly idling. (Without retention, using clean sessions and only QoS 0)...

It also cant draw a middle eastern man without a beard...

What about clean-shaven?

Thanks for mentioning, fixed now. That seems to be a translation error on my part.

Using the VoIP credentials of my ISP in the Fritz!Box or ATA and nothing else. (which they must provide since The Netherlands has free modem choice: https://web.archive.org/web/20230921231725/https://www.acm.n...), no other setup involved, no port forwarding, etc.

Try Pidgin with the excellent ms teams plugin: https://github.com/EionRobb/purple-teams - less than 100mb ram usage and notifications that still work after an hour. Only for (video) calls you need to open teams..

Hi this is camping with Steve and today we're nog behind a Canadian sign but inside a US sign!