jonny (good kind)People already are using "i saw this video before 2023" as a signature that the video is eligible to be believed. Soon, "this software was developed before 2025" will be the only sign that makes software eligible to be run.
d@nny disc@ mc²@jonny this is propaganda and i don't understand why you're saying it
@hipsterelectron
I am not sure what you mean? It is a true statement that people are using "I saw this before 2023" as a heuristic for whether a video is real or not, and I now use repo creation date (among other indicators) as a proxy for whether the code is likely to have been vibe coded. What is propaganda?
I am not sure what you mean? It is a true statement that people are using "I saw this before 2023" as a heuristic for whether a video is real or not, and I now use repo creation date (among other indicators) as a proxy for whether the code is likely to have been vibe coded. What is propaganda?
@jonny it's not the "only sign" that makes software eligible to run. it's irresponsible to make that claim and it diverts from the many existing ways to determine the provenance of creative works. it feeds nihilism instead of identifying ways creative works can be meaningfully sourced and verified. it serves the purpose behind the creation of these statistical systems that generate content to say that provenance can no longer be meaningfully distinguished beyond the creation date (as if backdating is not both possible and common). it demonstrates an example of critihype. nihilistic claims can be truly felt and still be irresponsible to propagate.
@hipsterelectron
Ok, well that is a very literal reading of what I'm saying here, but I see how you might read it that way. Maybe a closer phrasing to what I meant is just what I wrote above, "much like how people use pre/post AI as a marker for whether a video is likely to be real or not, I use pre/post AI as one of several indicators when I am evaluating a piece of software". Basically I was being glib.
I don't think its nihilistic, I still write code and still run code written recently, and of course all the other sources of provenance and social proof and etc. still exist. I guess the analogy to the video case is instructive - real videos still get taken and its important to not dismiss all recent videos as fabrications, but for recent videos you have to take extra special consideration of where it came from and other contextual markers surrounding it
@jonny it's not what i would have said and i consider it to be irresponsible when formulated as a public statement to be shared widely. similar sentiments are expressed by people i know you do not agree with who themselves do not actually possess the critical viewpoint you do in subsequent replies. i think it's worth considering the contribution such statements make towards a nihilistic understanding of a problem and how that disempowers your audience over educating them.