Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91992 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-09-22 20:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-09-26 14:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 203 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-22 20:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 22:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-23 00:25 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-23 09:41 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-23 08:50 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 12:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-23 23:11 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-23 12:43 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-09-23 14:09 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-09-23 11:55 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-23 23:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 01:31 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-09-24 10:07 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:30 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-09-24 10:39 -0300
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-26 13:02 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-26 14:51 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-27 13:29 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-27 19:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-11 11:37 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-10-11 14:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 09:55 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-09-27 11:01 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 07:57 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-09-30 08:40 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-30 20:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 20:56 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 08:04 -0700
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 00:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 00:51 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 02:02 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:27 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 23:21 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:34 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 02:57 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:24 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:59 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:02 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:16 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-03 10:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 12:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 12:55 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-23 19:24 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-23 18:28 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-23 21:04 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-09-24 07:16 +1000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-09-24 12:03 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2026-09-26 17:37 +1000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-27 09:53 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-27 18:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-28 12:52 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-28 17:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-28 15:56 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 03:30 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-29 02:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 03:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-09-29 12:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-29 10:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 18:19 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 19:38 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 23:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-29 18:54 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-29 23:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-30 01:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-30 02:04 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Abraham <chris@gerriscorp.com> - 2026-09-30 13:27 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 15:47 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-30 20:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-30 20:33 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 02:01 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:08 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-01 23:49 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:33 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 20:44 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:13 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:59 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 04:11 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 20:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:04 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-04 23:47 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:09 +0200
[OT] US politics (was: Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 17:16 +0100
Re: [OT] US politics (was: Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-04 18:18 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:13 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:33 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-05 02:46 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:18 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:33 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:42 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-05 23:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-06 01:44 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-06 03:56 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 01:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 08:01 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-07 03:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:00 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-07 18:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 07:45 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-08 20:23 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:24 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-08 23:59 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Harold Stevens <wookie@bookworm.localdomain> - 2026-10-09 05:00 -0500
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-08 23:44 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-10-14 14:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:57 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:58 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:33 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:56 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-07 11:28 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-10-08 20:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:18 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:46 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-10-09 04:21 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 18:15 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-09 11:14 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 18:27 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-08 17:14 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-08 22:20 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:55 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-09 02:53 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:56 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:32 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 20:42 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 03:08 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 02:05 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-03 01:59 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-03 09:04 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-03 19:57 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:02 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 13:11 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-03 16:09 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 09:08 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-10-04 10:48 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:09 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:35 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-04 18:59 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-10-04 20:33 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-05 01:09 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-05 12:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-05 02:45 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-05 10:33 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:13 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 19:27 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 21:32 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 02:49 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:21 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-10-02 22:44 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-01 04:50 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:06 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-02 00:40 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-01 11:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Abraham <chris@gerriscorp.com> - 2026-09-29 20:15 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-29 10:46 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 11:56 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 20:00 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 02:09 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-24 00:18 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 01:24 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 11:58 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:47 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 02:13 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 00:21 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 05:53 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 03:03 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 12:23 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:42 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-24 21:56 +0200
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 01:00 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:39 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-24 23:17 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-25 04:36 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-25 19:14 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:01 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-26 14:43 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 03:51 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-24 03:52 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:43 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-25 09:17 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-25 17:58 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 04:49 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:15 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 09:51 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 04:03 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-26 09:42 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 12:03 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-24 10:31 +0100
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-24 19:20 +0000
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-26 03:41 -0400
Re: More Lazy(?) Programmers Are Seduced By AI rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-26 14:01 +0000
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 09:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119qcr6$2qdqt$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92703 |
On 03/10/2026 03:59, c186282 wrote: > On 10/2/26 07:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 02/10/2026 07:57, c186282 wrote: >>> On 10/1/26 11:04, John Ames wrote: >>>> On 1 Oct 2026 04:21:32 GMT >>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But the DOW is up! The US economy is amazing! It's interesting the >>>>> technologically ignorant are all for it. >>>> >>>> The Managerial Caste *looovvve* the idea of obsoleting all those pesky >>>> white-collar workers the way they decimated skilled labor via indus- >>>> trial automation in the 20th century - and being *A.* technologically >>>> ignorant and *B.* surrounded by yes-men in a culture that selects for >>>> them, they are *utterly* incapable of seeing that the promise is a >>>> fantasy being sold to them by grifters. >>>> >>> >>> Actually, the DOW is *down*. >>> >>> WAS up over 55000, now barely holding >>> on to 50000. >>> >> Big problem is that no one trusts Trump to pay his debts. >> >> Gilt rates have never been higher. > > "Gilt" ? :-) > Do you not know what that is? > The Iran thing has been the main burden on > "the markets". > > Still, do NOT want Iran with nukes and ICBMs. > Had to do the nasty. SHOULD have been done a > long time ago. > Nukes are almost irrelevant these days >>> Ok, not THAT much change, but 50,000 is >>> kind of a benchmark because Trump made >>> it so. >>> >>> Oddly, oil/other traffic in The Gulf is >>> almost at pre-war levels now. Iran seems >>> to have run out of terror drones. You'd >>> THINK this would push up markets and >>> crash energy prices. >>> >>> So, WHY NOT ??? >>> >> Time delay. And the fact that transporting middle east oil to Europe >> is no longer a simple cheap operation. > > Correct about "delay". > > Gulf traffic is now pretty good. Not really > pre-war levels but "good enough". Thing is it > takes a good month or two or three to SEE > this in various markets/industries. > Of course. One stupid adventure that failed does not prevent a stupid nan from repeating the same mistake > The biggest thing now, diesel fuel. It is > absolutely vital for many base industries. > CAN be synthesized, but at even greater cost. > Electric doesn't even come close to diesel > for heavy equipment. > >>> Something weird going on here. >>> >>> More POLITICAL than real ??? >>> >> *slow handclap*. And Trumpian profiteering > > All pols/regimes "profiteer" a little. Look > into Joe and Nancy and Hillary and ...... > Indeed. but none so blatantly and shamelessly > Trump really SEEMS to be trying to do better > for the USA/west. Can't SAY that for a number > of his predecessors. > So he is a master of bullshit. But nothing else. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-01 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni655mFhjk6U12@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92517 |
On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 20:50:52 +0000, Leroy H wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2026 07:57:48 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > > >> The underlying concepts could have uses, but that's not what's being >> marketed today, that's not what companies drinking into that kool-aid >> end up doing mostly, the peer pressure in business and CEO circles is >> to use "cloud-based" centralized offerings, >> >> > Steel mills? Auto plants? Manufacturing centers? Investors will balk. > > But AI data centers? Investors will commit billions ($$$$). <https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/09/30/ai-market-needs-to-make-6-trillion-a-year-by-2031-to-fund-its-infrastructure-habit/5300175> https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/30/the-ugly-economics-of-consumer-ai/ Investors may lose billions. Nobody wants to look too closely since the AI bubble is what is making the US economic figures look good. Don't pop that bubble!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 10:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6ac0d43b$0$10331$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #92472 |
Le 30-09-2026, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> a écrit : > On 2026-09-27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > >> Platon said that writing was bad because people at his time didn't >> remembered the stories as Homer did. At that time, you were able to find >> a work if you didn't knew how to read and write. Now, someone unable to >> read and to write has real difficulties to live. A few decades ago, a >> lot of people weren't able to use a computer and hadn't access to >> Internet. Now, without Internet and without a computer, it's difficult >> to live. Old people can't see their grand-children if they don't use a >> computer with Internet connection. In France, it's mandatory to use >> Internet to declare one taxes. >> >> It's the same with AI. Today, there are a lot of ways to avoid it. In a >> few decades it will be way more difficult. I'm not saying it's good or >> it's bad. I'm saying AI is there and one must acknowledge it. An old guy >> trying to avoid it today can hope to never need to use it. A young guy >> would be ill-advised to try to avoid it today. > > The analogy only has one problem: GenAI as it is available and marketed > today is an unsustainable mess, economically, financially and in terms > of damage it does if embraced the way marketing wants people to. So, are the cars. And is anyone starting to remove the cars from planet earth? No, the oil will become more and more expansive and when people are realizing it, they are complaining about that against their governments. The life of Iranians, Ukrainians and Russians dying in war are less important than the cost of the oil put in the cars. Saying like that, it can sound horrible, but people are asking their government to stop the war are complaining about the cost of the oil, not about the death of innocent civilians. When everyone like to criticize planes for the pollution, they have done a lot of thing to reduce their ecological impact. When the cars are going in the opposite way. Because people care about ecology only when that doesn't impact their daily lives. And, as I said, there are two parts on the AI today, they are related, but they'll face different issues. One part, is the one that won't be able to keep going that way, it's the people investing more and more in building AI. They all (well except for nvidia but it's different) loose a lot of money and it will brake sometime. The other part is the people investing in it's use. They are happy with that. There are some drawback, but a lot of things are working. And refusing to use AI in a company in which everyone is using AI will be an impossibility. If a young guy can find alternative today, in a few years/decades it will be impossible. I mean in a job related with computers. One can always go in the rainforest to hunt one's own food with a knife, but it's a hard choice to make. > I know there are some voices whose main criticism is "but that will cut > jobs!", First, it's the life on earth. Some jobs appear, other disappear and it's not related with AI. Not so long ago, someone asked me if I was afraid to lose my job because of AI? I answered that my job was already at stake with Indians which are cheaper and I already have to prove I have some added value. So the changes related with old and new jobs is just part of the life. The second thing is the possibility that AI can be able to replace every job on earth. If so, I wonder if it would be a real issue. Actually, there are some people who are living only through their job and it would be difficult for them. But, most of people are only trying to get retired sooner, to have more holidays and to work less hour each day. So, for them, it would be a good news to remove work. A long time ago, a comic book imagined a world without work. Everyone was dreaming except a very few guys needed to do the exceptional part unable to be done by machines. <https://valerian-laureline.fandom.com/wiki/Bad_Dreams> I don't know if it would be good or not. But why people are complaining against work and wanted to work at the same time? > but if you're seeing too much of that, rest assured that there's > also plenty of criticism about energy consumption, about other run-time > costs, about the system's suitability and fitness for purpose, and also > about copyfraud and copyright violation. Oh, and information security. I know all about that. I'm not saying that it's good or bad. I'm saying that it's there. And there are to much money at stake to go the other way around. > So, no, what we have here isn't a good technology, Once again, I never said that it was good or bad. I'm saying that it's there and one has to face it. I'm saying a young guy who want to work with computers need to be able to use AI. It's not a long term option. It will be a requirement in a few years/decades. > A person using locally-trained GenAI systems to process scientific data, > in a way that also allows some knowledge extraction, or that at least > gets extensively tested to assess false positives and false negatives, > that's more useful, and those are perhaps the uses to focus on. But > that's disjoint from "GenAI chat as a rented service". No, the company trying to use AI today are looking for every way AI can help them. So they are making mistakes but they are using it on useful ways too. Companies are using AI in a lot of ways, not only the one in the news, but other, sometimes surprising ways. > After this bubble bursts Sometimes, I see people being confused about the AI bubble AI. As I said, there are two parts in AI investment today. The first part being creating AI: <https://isaiprofitable.com/>. People won't stop to eat to put money in AI, so, at one time it will burst. But, it doesn't mean the data centers already created will disappear during the night. It mean no more data centers will be created and so it will stop improving as fast as it is today. But what's there will still be there. And people using AI won't expect a so fast improvement of their tools. But they will keep using what they are using today. The AI bubble mean that AI will stop to receive all the money generated in the world. So, for example, nvidia cards will become cheaper for everyone because AI data centers will stop to take them all for themselves. And maybe nvidia jobs will be lost during the process. It doesn't mean that AI will disappear. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 12:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119qnjt$2u99c$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92744 |
On 03/10/2026 11:08, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: > Le 30-09-2026, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> a écrit : >> On 2026-09-27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >> >>> Platon said that writing was bad because people at his time didn't >>> remembered the stories as Homer did. At that time, you were able to find >>> a work if you didn't knew how to read and write. Now, someone unable to >>> read and to write has real difficulties to live. A few decades ago, a >>> lot of people weren't able to use a computer and hadn't access to >>> Internet. Now, without Internet and without a computer, it's difficult >>> to live. Old people can't see their grand-children if they don't use a >>> computer with Internet connection. In France, it's mandatory to use >>> Internet to declare one taxes. >>> >>> It's the same with AI. Today, there are a lot of ways to avoid it. In a >>> few decades it will be way more difficult. I'm not saying it's good or >>> it's bad. I'm saying AI is there and one must acknowledge it. An old guy >>> trying to avoid it today can hope to never need to use it. A young guy >>> would be ill-advised to try to avoid it today. >> >> The analogy only has one problem: GenAI as it is available and marketed >> today is an unsustainable mess, economically, financially and in terms >> of damage it does if embraced the way marketing wants people to. > > So, are the cars. And is anyone starting to remove the cars from planet > earth? No, the oil will become more and more expansive and when people > are realizing it, they are complaining about that against their > governments. The life of Iranians, Ukrainians and Russians dying in war > are less important than the cost of the oil put in the cars. Saying like > that, it can sound horrible, but people are asking their government to > stop the war are complaining about the cost of the oil, not about the > death of innocent civilians. Especially in Russia itself... > > When everyone like to criticize planes for the pollution, they have done > a lot of thing to reduce their ecological impact. When the cars are > going in the opposite way. Because people care about ecology only when > that doesn't impact their daily lives. > There are no real solutions to long distance air travel except carbon fuel But surface transport can use trains or electric-cars-on-trains getting charged as they travel. > And, as I said, there are two parts on the AI today, they are related, > but they'll face different issues. One part, is the one that won't > be able to keep going that way, it's the people investing more and more > in building AI. They all (well except for nvidia but it's different) > loose a lot of money and it will brake sometime. ..."*Lose* a lot of money and it will *break* sometime" > The other part is the > people investing in it's use. They are happy with that. There are some > drawback, but a lot of things are working. And refusing to use AI in a > company in which everyone is using AI will be an impossibility. If a > young guy can find alternative today, in a few years/decades it will be > impossible. I mean in a job related with computers. One can always go in > the rainforest to hunt one's own food with a knife, but it's a hard > choice to make. > >> I know there are some voices whose main criticism is "but that will cut >> jobs!", > > First, it's the life on earth. Some jobs appear, other disappear and > it's not related with AI. Not so long ago, someone asked me if I was > afraid to lose my job because of AI? I answered that my job was already > at stake with Indians which are cheaper and I already have to prove I > have some added value. So the changes related with old and new jobs is > just part of the life. > Indeed. In fact with AI and robots its likely that there will be almost no need for people at all, to make stuff. The question then arises as to who all these robots and AIs will be doing stuff *for*. I mean it leaves Elon Musk as the last man standing surround by a sea of fawning robots and everyone else has been turned into fertiliser > The second thing is the possibility that AI can be able to replace every > job on earth. If so, I wonder if it would be a real issue. Actually, > there are some people who are living only through their job and it would > be difficult for them. But, most of people are only trying to get > retired sooner, to have more holidays and to work less hour each day. > So, for them, it would be a good news to remove work. A long time ago, a > comic book imagined a world without work. Everyone was dreaming except a > very few guys needed to do the exceptional part unable to be done by > machines. People don't want work and they don't want money. They want *wealth*. Stuff like accommodation, food, heating, healthcare. Brain candy. No one wants WORK FFS. The only reason it pays is because someone wants it done but doesn't want to do it. > <https://valerian-laureline.fandom.com/wiki/Bad_Dreams> > I don't know if it would be good or not. But why people are complaining > against work and wanted to work at the same time? > See above. While work remains the only route to *wealth* they want it >> but if you're seeing too much of that, rest assured that there's >> also plenty of criticism about energy consumption, about other run-time >> costs, about the system's suitability and fitness for purpose, and also >> about copyfraud and copyright violation. Oh, and information security. > > I know all about that. I'm not saying that it's good or bad. I'm saying > that it's there. And there are to much money at stake to go the other > way around. > "IS too much money." Money is singular. >> So, no, what we have here isn't a good technology, > > Once again, I never said that it was good or bad. I'm saying that it's > there and one has to face it. I'm saying a young guy who want to work > with computers need to be able to use AI. It's not a long term option. > It will be a requirement in a few years/decades. > Its certainly made searching google for answers, better. >> A person using locally-trained GenAI systems to process scientific data, >> in a way that also allows some knowledge extraction, or that at least >> gets extensively tested to assess false positives and false negatives, >> that's more useful, and those are perhaps the uses to focus on. But >> that's disjoint from "GenAI chat as a rented service". > > No, the company trying to use AI today are looking for every way AI can > help them. So they are making mistakes but they are using it on useful > ways too. Companies are using AI in a lot of ways, not only the one in > the news, but other, sometimes surprising ways. > It was the same with computers, Many companies computerised needlessly, or computerised in a really cost ineffective way. >> After this bubble bursts > > Sometimes, I see people being confused about the AI bubble AI. As I > said, there are two parts in AI investment today. The first part being > creating AI: <https://isaiprofitable.com/>. People won't stop to eat to > put money in AI, so, at one time it will burst. But, it doesn't mean the > data centers already created will disappear during the night. It mean no > more data centers will be created and so it will stop improving as fast > as it is today. But what's there will still be there. And people using > AI won't expect a so fast improvement of their tools. But they will keep > using what they are using today. > Agreed > The AI bubble mean that AI will stop to receive all the money generated > in the world. So, for example, nvidia cards will become cheaper for > everyone because AI data centers will stop to take them all for > themselves. And maybe nvidia jobs will be lost during the process. It > doesn't mean that AI will disappear. > I think so. At the moment greed is driving massive deployment in AI *in case* it will enhance profitability. Eventually it will all settle down and become 'just another tool' -- Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 12:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119b08b$19l73$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92269 |
On 27/09/2026 09:55, Nuno Silva wrote: > So GenAI is the new LinkedIn? Or also the new Java? New Lemmings. -- In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act. - George Orwell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 19:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11911vm$1vull$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91992 |
On 22/09/2026 22:08, Leroy H wrote: [..] > AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent > programmers. AI is just a tool. A competent programmer is someone who makes the most of their tools. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 18:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhik2dFjs3nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92036 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:24:04 +0200, John Bokma wrote: > On 22/09/2026 22:08, Leroy H wrote: > > [..] > >> AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent >> programmers. > > AI is just a tool. A competent programmer is someone who makes the most > of their tools. The 'competent programmer' clause is the rub. I've seen too many posts by panicked newbies who have suddenly realized they've been gliding along with Claude and can't write a line of code on their own. Or is competency now defined as the ability to create prompts? I saw one post where the kid couldn't understand for loops and wanted to create games in Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 21:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11917rh$227v3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92041 |
On 23/09/2026 20:28, rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:24:04 +0200, John Bokma wrote: > >> On 22/09/2026 22:08, Leroy H wrote: >> >> [..] >> >>> AI assistance should be extremely repugnant to all competent >>> programmers. >> >> AI is just a tool. A competent programmer is someone who makes the most >> of their tools. > > The 'competent programmer' clause is the rub. I've seen too many posts by > panicked newbies who have suddenly realized they've been gliding along > with Claude and can't write a line of code on their own. Or is competency > now defined as the ability to create prompts? That too. A good prompt is often the key to a good solution. But in my experience one has to be able to at least understand the solution to see if it's good or bad. > I saw one post where the kid couldn't understand for loops and wanted to > create games in Python. Oops. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 07:16 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab441ba@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #92043 |
John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> wrote: > On 23/09/2026 20:28, rbowman wrote: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:24:04 +0200, John Bokma wrote: >>> AI is just a tool. A competent programmer is someone who makes the most >>> of their tools. >> >> The 'competent programmer' clause is the rub. I've seen too many posts by >> panicked newbies who have suddenly realized they've been gliding along >> with Claude and can't write a line of code on their own. Or is competency >> now defined as the ability to create prompts? > > That too. A good prompt is often the key to a good solution. But in my > experience one has to be able to at least understand the solution to see > if it's good or bad. I've always found understanding other people's code much more of a chore than writing my own, so that seems like a dead end from the start to me. Now what would help me a lot is an AI that can immediately answer practical debugging questions like "why did that seg. fault happen just then?". -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 12:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1192sh5$2ikqk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92045 |
On 23/09/2026 23:16, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> wrote: >> On 23/09/2026 20:28, rbowman wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:24:04 +0200, John Bokma wrote: >>>> AI is just a tool. A competent programmer is someone who makes the most >>>> of their tools. >>> >>> The 'competent programmer' clause is the rub. I've seen too many posts by >>> panicked newbies who have suddenly realized they've been gliding along >>> with Claude and can't write a line of code on their own. Or is competency >>> now defined as the ability to create prompts? >> >> That too. A good prompt is often the key to a good solution. But in my >> experience one has to be able to at least understand the solution to see >> if it's good or bad. > > I've always found understanding other people's code much more of a > chore than writing my own, so that seems like a dead end from the > start to me. On an existing code base AI (in my experience) uses the same coding style. Otherwise, create a SKILL.md which states that the same coding style has to be followed. > Now what would help me a lot is an AI that can immediately answer > practical debugging questions like "why did that seg. fault > happen just then?". Again, in my experience, it's quite good at such practical debugging questions. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 17:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6ab7764c@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #92065 |
John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> wrote: > On 23/09/2026 23:16, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Now what would help me a lot is an AI that can immediately answer >> practical debugging questions like "why did that seg. fault >> happen just then?". > > Again, in my experience, it's quite good at such practical debugging > questions. To answer such questions without doing all the work for it in order to explain all the details (like how after spending an hour or two writing a detailed question about a problem, eg. for posting to a newsgroup, I've often worked out the answer by myself by then anyway), the AI would need to be integrated with the execution environment so it can see what exact inputs caused "that seg. fault". -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 09:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <119ali0$16dl8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92188 |
On 2026-09-26, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> wrote:
>> On 23/09/2026 23:16, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Now what would help me a lot is an AI that can immediately answer
>>> practical debugging questions like "why did that seg. fault
>>> happen just then?".
>>
>> Again, in my experience, it's quite good at such practical debugging
>> questions.
>
> To answer such questions without doing all the work for it in order
> to explain all the details (like how after spending an hour or two
> writing a detailed question about a problem, eg. for posting to a
> newsgroup, I've often worked out the answer by myself by then
> anyway), the AI would need to be integrated with the execution
> environment so it can see what exact inputs caused "that seg.
> fault".
And we know it will never be able to cover all situations.[1] Although
if one "GenAI" tool that's not a massive copyvio mess or environmental
problem can provide useful insights, that's possibly an aid to consider.
But, in case someone isn't aware: there's already a whole set of tools
for static and dynamic analysis that predates the current GenAI
Enron^Wbubble, FLOSS and proprietary. To name just two examples, clang's
static analyzer and Coverity. (Didn't GCC get a static analyzer too?)
Some may also remember the names Valgrind and Purify for dynamic
analysis, and also for a cautionary tale of what could go wrong (say, if
Valgrind or Purify complains about a function using unitialized data).
(Those all are, of course, affected by the same "never be able to cover
all situations", at least as far as we're dealing with a Turing-complete
language or system, but are likely much better tailored for code and
program analysis.)
[1] /On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the
Entscheidungsproblem/, by A. M. Turing
<https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf>
--
Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 18:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nht76sFsunhU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92268 |
On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 09:53:19 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > Some may also remember the names Valgrind and Purify for dynamic > analysis, > and also for a cautionary tale of what could go wrong (say, if Valgrind > or Purify complains about a function using unitialized data). Valgrind was a joy when working with a Motif application. libMrm in particular was a pile of crap. We had a Purify license for a year or two but it was seldom used. Setting up the instrumentation was painful. I've found it surprising that Windows has never had very good debuggers or even programming editors. I use the Vim extension in VS Code and it helps. I haven't used Visual Studio in a long time but there used to be a Vim setup for that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 12:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <119e60t$2h73k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92337 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > On Sun, 27 Sep 2026 09:53:19 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> Some may also remember the names Valgrind and Purify for dynamic >> analysis, >> and also for a cautionary tale of what could go wrong (say, if Valgrind >> or Purify complains about a function using unitialized data). > > Valgrind was a joy when working with a Motif application. libMrm in > particular was a pile of crap. We had a Purify license for a year or two > but it was seldom used. Setting up the instrumentation was painful. > > I've found it surprising that Windows has never had very good debuggers or > even programming editors. I use the Vim extension in VS Code and it helps. > I haven't used Visual Studio in a long time but there used to be a Vim > setup for that too. Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. -- The things that interest people most are usually none of their business.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nhvm0nFsunhU16@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92385 |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:52:45 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. I never ran into that one. From the github files it's been around for 13 years. Almost all of the daemons and applications compiled on Linux so we used valgrind. I also used Electric Fence quite a bit but that required linking in lefence for test builds. One of the programmers was more adept with windbg than I. I used it mainly with cores. Sometimes I'd get something useful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-28 15:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <119egq9$2lhvl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92387 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:52:45 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. > > I never ran into that one. From the github files it's been around for 13 > years. Almost all of the daemons and applications compiled on Linux so we > used valgrind. I also used Electric Fence quite a bit but that required > linking in lefence for test builds. > > One of the programmers was more adept with windbg than I. I used it mainly > with cores. Sometimes I'd get something useful. WinDbg was something else. An amazing number of features. On Windows I use QtCreator to debug, the few times I boot to it. On Linux I use gdb with the vi-like wrapper cgdb. -- It's useless to try to hold some people to anything they say while they're madly in love, drunk, or running for office.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 03:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uxmcndwWLeO79Cb3nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #92393 |
On 9/28/26 15:56, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > >> On Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:52:45 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. >> >> I never ran into that one. From the github files it's been around for 13 >> years. Almost all of the daemons and applications compiled on Linux so we >> used valgrind. I also used Electric Fence quite a bit but that required >> linking in lefence for test builds. >> >> One of the programmers was more adept with windbg than I. I used it mainly >> with cores. Sometimes I'd get something useful. > > WinDbg was something else. An amazing number of features. > > On Windows I use QtCreator to debug, the few times I boot to it. > > On Linux I use gdb with the vi-like wrapper cgdb. Alas, all of these CAN be hard to interpret. Sometimes TOO much esoteric info. This MAY be an instance where an "AI" approach might be more informative ... 'smart' sifting through the 'chaff'. MY code ... always kept it as simple, straight, documented as possible. This HELPS with bugs, but is not a guarentee of anything. Sometimes the problem is a very very subtle logic bug. "Off-By-One" errs, TOO easy to crop up and SO hard to spot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 02:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260928221616@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #92385 |
On 2026-09-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: > Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. I thought Dr. Memory was a character in a Firesign Theatre album. https://youtu.be/9HUREASP9fE?t=183 https://potrzebie.blogspot.com/2010/06/read-me-dr-memory.html -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 03:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uxmcnd8WLeMQ8Sb3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #92402 |
On 9/28/26 22:20, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-09-28, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >> Dr. Memory, as I recall, is a valgrind-like setup for Windows. > > I thought Dr. Memory was a character in a Firesign Theatre album. > > https://youtu.be/9HUREASP9fE?t=183 > > https://potrzebie.blogspot.com/2010/06/read-me-dr-memory.html Oooooh ! You remember Firesign ! :-) "Waiting For The Electrician - Or Someone Like Him", a fave :-) You just don't SEE this kind of stuff anymore. All raised in the stodgy post-WW2 environment and, after a few joints, grasped the massive level of bullshit involved in Official Reality. The UK had Python and a few others. Hmm ... not too many years ago I was out 'in the field' and my boss called and asked what I was doing. My reply ...... :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-29 12:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260929080654@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #92410 |
On 2026-09-29, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > Oooooh ! You remember Firesign ! :-) I still have the original vinyl albums bought back in the day. > "Waiting For The Electrician - Or > Someone Like Him", a fave :-) That's a great one! I also love "How Time Flys" as well as "I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus" which gave us Dr. Memory. Then there's "How Can You Be in Two Places At Once...". Another favorite is "Everything You Know Is Wrong", which is a great, and surprisingly accurate, sendup of the postwar flying saucer/paranormal community. Remember, there's a seeker born every minute! > You just don't SEE this kind of stuff anymore. That's for sure... https://youtu.be/N-4YF7S7rHo?t=53 (I'm surprised that clip has not been purged from youtube.) > Hmm ... not too many years ago I was out 'in the > field' and my boss called and asked what I was doing. > My reply ...... :-) I still find myself using 'Firesignisms' all the time, though they tend to go right over the heads of most fellow old codgers, let alone younger people. That type of comedy and satire was of course a product of its time. R.I.P. Phil Austin and Peter Bergman. -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web