Is this useful? They’re started but doing absolutely nothing. Who cares? You need to plan for max usage not idle.

My forgejo instance running right now is using 1070MiB. That’s way off your 173MB.

Why do you feel a need to be able to claim that something is “written in Lua” or “Python” when it’s using native libraries? Many games are using a mix of languages these days. There’s no shame in it and I didn’t imply there is.

People get very confused over this thinking that “Python is very fast at number crunching” because of things like numpy which is written partly in C to achieve that performance.

This is like saying Rust isn’t a real language because it relies on LLVM which is written with C/CPP.

That’s entirely different - I’m not talking about the interpreter or compiler. Just the runtime code.

That’s not what I’m talking about. Things like “numpy” which are actually written with a fair amount of C for performance. Or pandas which uses Cython to trans-pile Python to C to compile.

It’s not “pure python”.

Was it though? Or is it like other things “written in Python” where all of the heavy work is handled by C libraries?

Cobol developers are typically developers who weren’t good enough to learn other languages. Their computing knowledge is often quite limited to their mainframe. I’ve never met one who was competent in anything else.

They’re not making the big bucks.

If AI actually made people faster and more productive, they could simply set faster timelines and people would use the tools.

I want to work with your team. I work with a sysadmin who, rather than using the up-arrow, will scroll up in his terminal to copy / paste the last command he ran. Even if that command was just “ls -l”.

It’s maddening to watch and horribly inefficient. But he’s always done it that way.

Many people simply do not seek a faster way of doing things.

People who don’t run nixos.

Like many “rules” of programming it’s actually more of a “guideline”. You can write pages defining the rule and all of the scenarios but it’s wasted effort IMO. Follow the “role” reasonably and discuss it during code review if it seems like something should be refactored.

You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.

“It’s not…”

“There are probably law firms…”

This is wild unfounded speculation.

P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

This hasn’t happened. It’s a fantasy.

Maybe you don’t understand copyright?

Yeah - it’s well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just “this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe”.

The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no “copyright fig leaf” apologia.

It’s code puritanism plain and simple. “We don’t like these things so we’re banning them.”

People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.

So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.

This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.

It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.

At the very least it’s a mistake to say the law is “settled” at all. It’s barely been tested.

Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms “slop” and “vibe” to poison the well.

Why don’t you think it’s not happening? Do you think headlines are the best way to determine what’s happening in the world?

And it’s not “news” in the same way that “I drove to work today without incident” doesn’t make headlines.

This wasn’t a “lie to children” - that’s a simplification. This was like explaining the Pythagorean theorem by introducing imaginary numbers.

Almost nobody ever uses hex to represent IP addresses ever. There is no reason to bring up hex. It complicates things rather than simplifies.

And to say “[t]hey are actually hex numbers from 0 to FF” is just misleading to the point of wrong. Numbers are not “hex” or “base 10” or “binary”. They’re numbers. We only represent them as hex or base10. They aren’t “different numbers”.

And in this case we almost always use base10. SO WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HEX?