How do you not understand that code quality alone is not a good measure for viability?
Take ZFS, for example. It is inarguably a good filesystem, and its code is… well, it’s not bad, so let’s quantify it as good, or good enough. But it’s still poison for the Linux codebase, because of its conflicting license.
Or take sweatshop labor, or slavery. Would you accept “good” code written under duress?
“AI is just a tool.” No. Machine learning algorithms are a tool. LLMs are an ecosystem, composed of agents, models, infrastructure, continuous labor to maintain the models updated, and more. And like in biological ecosystems, the worst performing factor determines the maximum health score, which for LLMs is “unethical as fuck.”
Linus may be smart about OSes and seems competent about project management, but I wouldn’t trust him to give me medical advice, and his opinion on AI is also wrong.
and its code is… well, it’s not bad, so let’s quantify it as good, or good enough
If “good enough” isn’t actually good enough, why are you calling it that? Your entire argument hinges on high code quality not being high code quality. Like… yeah, of course bad code is going to lead to bad outcomes. That’s literally the entire point he’s trying to make: the tool doesn’t matter, the result does.
No part of my argument hinges on ZFS code being good quality. My argument is that ZFS code is desirable.
the tool doesn’t matter, the result does.
The argument “the method doesn’t matter, only results” has been the source of so many ethics and academic violations. You saying that with a straight face says enough about you. Bye.
How do you not understand that code quality alone is not a good measure for viability?
Take ZFS, for example. It is inarguably a good filesystem, and its code is… well, it’s not bad, so let’s quantify it as good, or good enough. But it’s still poison for the Linux codebase, because of its conflicting license.
Or take sweatshop labor, or slavery. Would you accept “good” code written under duress?
“AI is just a tool.” No. Machine learning algorithms are a tool. LLMs are an ecosystem, composed of agents, models, infrastructure, continuous labor to maintain the models updated, and more. And like in biological ecosystems, the worst performing factor determines the maximum health score, which for LLMs is “unethical as fuck.”
Linus may be smart about OSes and seems competent about project management, but I wouldn’t trust him to give me medical advice, and his opinion on AI is also wrong.
If “good enough” isn’t actually good enough, why are you calling it that? Your entire argument hinges on high code quality not being high code quality. Like… yeah, of course bad code is going to lead to bad outcomes. That’s literally the entire point he’s trying to make: the tool doesn’t matter, the result does.
No part of my argument hinges on ZFS code being good quality. My argument is that ZFS code is desirable.
The argument “the method doesn’t matter, only results” has been the source of so many ethics and academic violations. You saying that with a straight face says enough about you. Bye.