@ZLabe is there a reason the color table isn't updated to a larger scale for accuracy? Just for long term consistency I suppose?

Send like this is going to be more and more common, and it can't get much whiter lol

@mrundkvist

I can run a generative machine learning model for free on my laptop now, and it will continue to work for 10 years with no additional cost and without connecting to the Internet.

"Venture Capital-fuelled dumpster fire" only really applies to future development work on pushing the models, not in running the models once they have been developed. There is no inherent difference between traditional ml and llms beyond hype and the amount of shitty companies trying to sell it as a product. It's all just a lot of math

@cas I think for most of the git as a service websites that would mean you still would end up with a timeline of 'fix' 'fix 2' 'linting' 'fix again' with the description of what actually changed hidden. The value of my commit messages is already about zero as it stands if I am writing them, mostly because I can't stand writing commit messages.

A lot of this comes down to how you use git - I might have 30 commit messages in a PR, because I commit and push religiously on basically any change. In my experience Claude is 100% correct when writing a commit message for these small changes so the average value of a commit message on my projects has skyrocketed.

On the flip side I have played around with having Claude create the PR itself and am frequently disappointed in how it describes the change. I think what you are describing is actually essentially how it works in my flow: I hand write the PR title and description, and if you wanna look at a summary of what was done specifically there is a whole timeline of very detailed commit messages

@cas I agree completely regarding things you are intending for communication. That being said, my line for 'communication' in a shared repository is at the PR level. I would much rather have extremely accurate and over documented commit messages made by AI paired with an 'artisanal' human written message for **why** the change needs to happen, and what they where thinking when they made the change.

I feel like I am only really reading commit messages to figure out why a bug happened, and having very thorough (honestly usually too thorough) commit messages is nice.

@cloudskater @codinghorror @nerdpr0f @nopatience @cR0w

I think this ends up being a reductive view that ends up pushing the people who want to do good with it away from using generative AI as a tool, leaving only the worst people you know to benefit from it's uses.

Someone using generative AI to build a community food drive website is in direct opposition to the ghouls using it to write algorithms to maximize food profits at the large grocers. And only one of those people is going to be convinced the tool itself is harmful