mold 3.0.0 is a new major release of the high-speed linker. As we announced in the 2.42.1 release notes, we have rewritten mold from C++ to Rust, and this is the first release of the Rust version. ...
I disagree, I feel we should use the term slop for anything that GenAI has touched, be it code, visual art, writing or whatever else. GenAI is very unethical and I don’t think we should accept its existence. GenAI as a whole, for any use, should be objected to.
GenAI is very unethical and I don’t think we should accept its existence. GenAI as a whole, for any use, should be objected to.
I largely agree with that.
But dogmatically putting everything in the same category makes your message inaudible. The term “slop” predates GenAI, for most people it describes the quality, and they may find that some GenAI output is slop while some other is good. Similar dichotomy with “vibecoding”. If you ignore nuance that people care about, they won’t listen to you.
Also, pushing against GenAI by pointing out bad quality output is quickly becoming ineffective. The tools are improving, people are learning to use them well, and top quality is not always necessary. What we need to point out are the deeper issues: ethical, societal, environmental, etc.
GenAI exists, and will keep growing. If we want to limit the bad consequences, we need to talk to people, not just bluntly reject the tech.
In my views, “slop” is something soulless, and is not quite a reflection of quality.
I agree that we shouldn’t fight against it by saying its output is bad quality; we should fight against it by saying it’s soulless, and because of all of the negative externalities. It is, in its essence, a machine which devalues humanity and erodes our bonds with one-another.
Though, I do think we should bluntly reject the tech. We should definitely talk to people and have empathy, we should definitely be kind. The whole reason I am anti-GenAI is because I am pro-people, so of course we should be! But I do not think we should accept GenAI in any way.
That it will keep growing is a decision we as a society have to make, and I feel we should push that decision towards “no, we don’t want it, and it should go away”.
The existence and naming of the tag is largely orthogonal to the acceptance or rejection of the technology.
Is a user filtering on “rust” rejecting Rust? Not really, they’re just not interesting in reading about Rust on lobste.rs. Similarly, you might not be interested in reading about GenAI assisted software development here.
The name of the tag, “vibecoding”, is clearly opinionated against the tech : it relates to a way of using GenAI that is decried even amongst GenAI users. It’s not a neutral term like GenAI is.
I don’t mind the existence of the “vibecoding” tag, I would probably use it if could be applied judiciously, for example on stories about the Bun rewrite. But as it is, it’s applied both too broadly (there’s no indication that the mold rewrite was vibecoded, just AI-assisted) and too haphazardly (missing for example from many Ladybird posts).
I disagree, I feel we should use the term slop for anything that GenAI has touched, be it code, visual art, writing or whatever else. GenAI is very unethical and I don’t think we should accept its existence. GenAI as a whole, for any use, should be objected to.
score 1 · canonical
I largely agree with that.
But dogmatically putting everything in the same category makes your message inaudible. The term “slop” predates GenAI, for most people it describes the quality, and they may find that some GenAI output is slop while some other is good. Similar dichotomy with “vibecoding”. If you ignore nuance that people care about, they won’t listen to you.
Also, pushing against GenAI by pointing out bad quality output is quickly becoming ineffective. The tools are improving, people are learning to use them well, and top quality is not always necessary. What we need to point out are the deeper issues: ethical, societal, environmental, etc.
GenAI exists, and will keep growing. If we want to limit the bad consequences, we need to talk to people, not just bluntly reject the tech.
score 1 · canonical
In my views, “slop” is something soulless, and is not quite a reflection of quality.
I agree that we shouldn’t fight against it by saying its output is bad quality; we should fight against it by saying it’s soulless, and because of all of the negative externalities. It is, in its essence, a machine which devalues humanity and erodes our bonds with one-another.
Though, I do think we should bluntly reject the tech. We should definitely talk to people and have empathy, we should definitely be kind. The whole reason I am anti-GenAI is because I am pro-people, so of course we should be! But I do not think we should accept GenAI in any way.
That it will keep growing is a decision we as a society have to make, and I feel we should push that decision towards “no, we don’t want it, and it should go away”.
score 2 · canonical
The existence and naming of the tag is largely orthogonal to the acceptance or rejection of the technology.
Is a user filtering on “rust” rejecting Rust? Not really, they’re just not interesting in reading about Rust on lobste.rs. Similarly, you might not be interested in reading about GenAI assisted software development here.
score 1 · canonical
The name of the tag, “vibecoding”, is clearly opinionated against the tech : it relates to a way of using GenAI that is decried even amongst GenAI users. It’s not a neutral term like GenAI is.
I don’t mind the existence of the “vibecoding” tag, I would probably use it if could be applied judiciously, for example on stories about the Bun rewrite. But as it is, it’s applied both too broadly (there’s no indication that the mold rewrite was vibecoded, just AI-assisted) and too haphazardly (missing for example from many Ladybird posts).
IMHO the tag needs to be split.
score 2 · canonical