/c/imgoingtoheavenforthis

I don’t think OP is asking for what you’re saying they’re asking for.

There are vegans who gatekeep and exclude people who eat plants/fruits/vegetables fertalized with animal manure. Richard Stallman approved of using proprietary operating systems to build Free Software in some cases. There’s probably no end to how deep you can go down such purity rabbitholes. And the same is true of AI.

In the vegan example, most people don’t think of not eating manure-fertilized plant products as a requirement for being a vegan. Similarly, I don’t think anyone expects “no AI was used in the making of this product” to mean they built it on an operating system that forbids generative AI. (Particularly because, as you rightly say, it’s nigh infeasible to escape generative AI entirely.

That said, a website like Itch.io that explicitly forbids projects that include AI-generated code, story, assets, etc, (not as in was built completely without the influence of generative AI, but just the game/project/whatever itself includes no AI-generated stuff), will consider strong-enough evidence of a violation of that policy a bannable offense, and offers a way to report offenders would almost definitely meet virtually everyone’s (including OP’s I’d wager) definition of “AI-free”. And that would accomplish probably 99% as much benefit (over sites that indiscriminately allow slop) as the purest possible approach without the drawback of a 99% smaller catalog. I don’t think a rule that earlier versions of a game must not have contained AI-generated content either, really.

Yes some slop would slip through. Some people are bad actors. And I’d think generative-AI boosters are more liable to try to scam people for profit than the average person. But also, most scams are fairly low effort. And I expect that if a site like what I’m describing existed, the majority of dishonest submissions would be pretty transparent. Even those that actually managed to get listed would get removed fairly quickly.

Every broker has rules. (Including Lemmy.) And every sufficiently complex ecosystem has parasites. And so every broker has rule-breakers. Ebay and Amazon and Steam and Itch.io etc etc etc exist despite the difficulty in enforcing whatever particular rules they might have. Yes rule violations things slip through and affect customers on all of the above platforms and every other platform. Doesn’t mean there’s no point in having rules at all.

Basically the other options are “AI good”, “AI bad”, and “I dunno”. I took the remaining option to cover either “AI both good and bad” or “AI neutral”.

That word “we” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Oh look. Another perfectly normal headline.

Well, I don’t like it. Lol.

Adding something like monads to Go as some first-order kind of thing really feels to me like it would be a big bag on the side. (I mean, I feel like all the functional stuff in Java like lambdas and streams and stuff is a bag on the side in the same way. Java fanboys back in the day touted Java’s proceduralness as a strength. Now I have to wonder whether those fanboys have left Java for other languages and the Java fanboys we have now are a new crop of lambda-positive Java fanboys or whether the old Java fanboys changed their tunes and decided functional programming was a good thing for Java after all.) It’d make Go kindof not Go any more, making it “just another language that adds features willy-nilly”.

Plus, changing the standard library to use monads instead of multiple return values for errors would be a huge backwards-incompatible thing. Not to say backwards-incompatible changes shouldn’t be made. (I have great respect for Python’s 3.0 rework, for instance. And I think Java is extremely overdue for something similar.) But I don’t see adding monads as a benefit at all, let alone worth the effort of migrating.

I’m sure part of the reason why most of the previous proposals haven’t been accepted is because it would create tons of interactions with existing Go functionality and/or confusing edge cases, each of which would have to be considered.

I just googled (DuckDuckGo’d, actually) and ran across this proposal. I’m not sure I hate… something roughly like it (yet). But it’s not as if it doesn’t have any costs.

My thoughts on it:

• I will say I strongly oppose creating variables with magically-decided names (for which I’m pretty sure there’s no precedent in Go), so I’d want the “Declaring the err variable” version mentioned in the proposal that would require the variable name to be explicit: count := strconv.Atoi(input) ? err { return err } (rather than count := strconv.Atoi(input) ? { return err }.) (I’d probably be ok with omitting that variable name after the ? rather than requiring an underscore if that value wasn’t used in the body of the block… if I convince myself I’m ok with even the basic premise, that is.)
• I also don’t think there’s any precedent for any syntactical elements requiring a variable to be “of interface type that implements the built-in error type”, so I’d rather the ? construct assign the positionally-last return value to the more locally-scoped variable (whose name is after the ?) than requiring that variable to be of any particular type.
• One open question would be “would count be visible within that block”? Usually a variable is not defined until after the statement that declares it, but this new block would be… part of the statement that declares it, which makes it kindof weird for that variable to be visible inside the block. I concede it would be useful to be visible inside the block, but it still makes scoping confusing, which isn’t an insignificant cost. Of course, if count, err := strconv.Atoi(input); err != nil {...} also declares a variable that’s visible within the block is part of the statement, but that feels different to me because in that case the variable is only visible inside the block and not outside as well.
• If hypothetically I did convince myself I was ok with a proposal like this, I might want use of the ? expanded to other situations. Like func bob() (int, error) { ... } ; func(i int) { ... }(bob()?) to silently suppress the error that bob returns. But one major cost of that would be that there’s no rule that “if you return an error, the other return values must be the zero value of the associated type”. It’s a common convention, but not so common as to be inviolable. If, say, a library did return something specific rather than the zero value when returning an error, it would probably have to devote a lot of extra documentation to that situation because that’s a pretty confusing corner case. (Like, maybe a function returns a coefficient to be multiplied by something, but does a return 1, fmt.Errorf("...") if something fails because you’re more likely to want a 1 in an error condition where you’re multiplying that value by something than a 0. (Or maybe that case would be better with a 0.))
• I don’t think I’d ever use such a construct with a block on one line. I’d probably make it look more like the following, which honestly makes it harder to see the benefit relative to the existing if err := bob(); err != nil { ... } convention:

count := strconv.Atoi(input) ? err {
  return err
}

Honestly, the more I think about it just while writing out my thoughts above, the more I think it isn’t worth it. There is one poposal for error handling that I can say I “like” without reservations, though. (And it seems the core Go team is, roughly, planning to take that route.)

If I had to pick a biggest frustration with how Go is, it would probably be nil. I kindof wish it didn’t have that or anything like it. Not to say I’ve thought it through. There may be really good reasons why nil has to exist. But maybe it would be fine for the zero value of a function to be a function that does nothing but panic. And the zero value of a map to be an empty map. And the zero value of a pointer to be a pointer to a zero value of the pointed-to type. Etc. I don’t think it’s worth changing that at this point, though. I’d rather just use Go as it is than have Go embark on such a drastic change.

Honestly, I kinda like if err != nil {. It forces me to think more carefully about how I want errors handled than something like throw does.

I don’t feel like I have experience with that many different languages. Maybe there’s another language that does it in a way I’d like better. But I prefer Go’s model over the way, say, Java, JavaScript, or Python does things.

I’m starting to suspect the way I asked my question wasn’t clear and you (and BaroqueInMind) aren’t answering the question I meant to ask. Were you thinking my question involved LLM-generated code? I intended for my hypothetical to involve only wholely-human-authored code written with knowledge originally gained from LLM output.

(If you could read my first edit on my response to BaroqueInMind in this thread, I hope that’ll clear up what I was trying to ask.)

(Also, I hate calling anything gotten from an LLM “knowledge” because implies LLMs are reliable sources of accurate information. I could simply call it “information”, but that makes it sound like I’m talking about copying output from the LLM into the contribution itself when I actually mean information ingested into the human’s brain and considered in the process of authoring code themselves with their own human brain. Please excuse the lack of better ways to language it.)

If you are saying that in order to qualify for inclusion on noailist.org a project must forbid the use of knowledge gained from generative AIs, I of course want to know that as well, but yeah. I just want to make sure we’re not talking past each other.

The last part where you mentioned Google AI suggestion is still literally using AI.

Well, yeah, but I’m trying to get a better understanding of where the line is exactly. Not risking using knowledge you don’t specifically remember where you learned for fear it might have been from an LLM? Not using LLMs for the duration of the process of constructing your contribution? Does it require changing your search engine from Google to something without an AI overview, or is just scrolling past the AI overview without reading it enough? Do the project core maintainers need to go research the background of the contributor for signs that they may use AI for contributions to projects not related to yours, or is it enough to review the contribution to your project and ask the contributor to promise there was no AI used? If a contributor finds a bug or vulnerability using LLMs, confirms the issue themself without using generative AI, and files a ticket without using generative AI, am I allowed to fix the bug, or must I reject that contribution because the information contained therein would not (yet) have been found had LLMs not been used? Can I use dependencies with LLM-generated code in them? Can I use dependencies which do not have LLM-generated code but which have their own dependencies with LLM-generated code in them? What about dependencies that don’t have any explicit policy on LLM-generated code that I don’t know that they contain any LLM-generated code? Can I accept code contributions authored in a text editor with a generous generative-AI-generated code policy (but with no features for users to integrate with LLMs from the editor)? What about with the use of a compiler that has LLM-generated code in it? What about on an operating system kernel with a permissive generative AI policy such as Linux? Most importantly, is the language in my project’s contributor policy sufficiently strong to justify inclusion on noailist.org? (From OP’s answers to my question, it sounds like maybe the answer is “no”.)

If I were to contribute something to another project on noailist.org, I highly doubt it would be an issue for the project to accept it. I don’t use LLMs (or Stable Diffusion or Dalle or Suno etc) at all when I have a choice. I use noai.duckduckgo.com for search. My employer requires me to use Jira and Confluence, and both have LLM features. Confluence in particular shows summaries without being asked. I never read them, so I (purposefully) never learn anything from them, so making contributions based on information I’d learned from an LLM wouldn’t be an issue. (I’m lucky my employer doesn’t impose token usage quotas or anything.) That said, actions I take on a regular basis as part of my job result in the prompting of an LLM along the way without any specific intention to do so on my part. Assuming I’m right that noailist.org wouldn’t have any issues with contributions I make under such circumstances, my question is whether all contributors must be similarly strict for my project to be included on noailist.org. If not, I’m wondering what I’d have to change (aside from my employer, of course) to be a noailist.org-approved contributor. (Both so that I can contribute to projects on noailist.org and so I can make informed decisions if/when I get contributions to projects I maintain.)

When I have time, I’ll probably go read some of the no-AI policies for projects on noailist.org and see just how strongly they’re worded and how my contribution policy would have to change to be similarly strict.

Edit: Oh wait, I think I misread your comment. My example didn’t involve any LLM-generated code. (Or at least I meant for it not to.) Just getting knowledge (or at least “information”) from an LLM and then writing code themselves (not LLM-generated code) using knowledge they’d acquired from an LLM.

This bit here:

Did a human write that output? No? Oh it was generated by an LLM? Yes? And you used it? Yeah, that’s fucking called using AI.

makes it sound like you thought I was talking about LLM-generated code.

But now that I see you didn’t interpret it that way, I’m wondering if OP might have interpreted it the way you did.

Like, let’s say:

• I authored and published a project under a FOSS license.
• I was the only contributor to the project.
• I authored it before ChatGPT existed and haven’t contributed to it since, so there’s no question that no generative AI was used in its creation.
• After noailist.org came to exist, I added a contributor policy to my project that noailist.org’s rules would agree is sufficiently strict to warrant inclusion in noailist.org’s list. I submit my project and noailist.org accepts it and includes it in their list.
• Then one day, someone we’ll call Sam wants to contribute a new feature to my project that involves calculating the length of the diagonal of a square.
• They go and ask an LLM “how do I calculate the length of the diagonal of a square?”
• The LLM indicates that the length of the diagonal of a square is the length of one of the square’s sides times the square root of two (which happens to be correct). The LLM outputs no code (and was not asked/prompted to). Just an answer to the question asked.
• Sam closes the LLM and, without involving any LLMs any further, writes code themself using their own brain that invovles, among other things, calculating the length of the diagonal of a square. One line of the code is float64 squareDiagonalLength = squareSideLength * sqrt(2);, but that line of code itself was not written by an LLM (nor was any other line in the contribution). It was authored by Sam using knowledge they’d learned from an LLM.
• Sam then opens a PR on my project with the code they wrote (including code which calculates the length of the diagonal of a square).
• If I accept/merge the PR after code reviewing it knowing that Sam had asked an LLM how to calculate the length of the diagonal of a square (but also knowing that no LLM-generated code was included in the PR) have I broken noailist.org’s rules?

I hope that better illustrates the question I meant to ask.

But whatever the case, there has to be a line somewhere, right? I think of Stallman deciding that it was acceptable when authoring Free Software to do so on a proprietary operating system when no Free Software alternative existed. Much of the first version of the GNU project was authored on proprietary OSs. (With the blessings of RMS.)

Edit 2: Well, it looks like my go_lemmybot project with the exact contribution policy I linked eariler in this comment was accepted. It now appears on noailist.org. :shrug: I must have just been really imprecise with my earlier comment and everybody thought I was referring to LLM-generated code.

Why is everybody talking about PHP lately? Am I out of the loop?

What kind of projects do you want? I’ve got some dead projects that only one person has ever heard of that haven’t been touched since before the term “LLM” was in the public consciousness and so don’t have any explicit policies related to AI (but also don’t contain any slop, and I’d be perfectly happy to add a no-AI policy to any of those I’ve published). (Example.) I’ve also got some tiny little projects (that only one person has ever heard of) that have been updated recently that do have explicit no-AI policies. (Example.)

I’ve got other much more substantial side projects that I haven’t released yet that I intend specifically to get added to NoAiList.org in the future, but they’re not ready for release yet.

Edit: Oh, one more question. The no-AI policy language I came up with forbids “Contributions wholely-generated, partially-generated, or authored with substantial assistance by LLMs”. I left open the possibility of contributions “authored with insubstantial assistance by LLMs” a little bit there. My thought process was that it made sense to allow for contributions where, say, someone while authoring a commit to contribute to my codebase did one Google search to get an answer to a specific question and trusted the AI overview rather than hunting down the answer not in an LLM-generated summary and the solution worked and none of the contribution itself contained any LLM-generated code. Is that in line with your criteria for what qualifies as “no-AI”?

PHP is dead, learn Brainfuck

“Memento Mori in Purple”

Super cool.

This is more “confusing perspective” than “pereidolia”. I’m still considering whether it should be marked NSFW.

“No ethical consumption under capitalism.”

Dario in 3… 2…

I think they were only ever trying to IPO so they could use a gazillion bagholders as their exit liquidity.

I’ve had experiences that relate to your post, and I understand how difficult it can be to be in your position. I can’t really make your decisions for you, but hopefully some of the following will help:

First, since I made the post I linked here, my mother made an abrupt and unexpected reversal. One day out of the blue, she asked me to help her switch her default search engine on her computer to noai.duckduckgo.com and switch her phone’s browser to the Duck Duck Go browser and disable all AI features. (She’s not technical, so she appreciated, wanted, and requested the tech support assistance.) I don’t really know what prompted her to make the switch, but I’m elated by it. She’s still quite addicted to YouTube/Facebook shorts and some of the videos I see just by virtue of the fact that they’re playing in my viscinity are slop, but she usually makes the comment that “oh, that’s AI”. (Hell, we watched something on some streaming platform that had a slop scam ad targeting seniors with promises of some “Medicare grocery card” or something and my mother was the one who pointed out it was AI.) Her attitude has changed on the topic quite drastically. Between that post and my mother’s reversal, I did tell her “don’t read me that slop” or “yeah, but you can’t trust that because it’s LLM output” not terribly infrequently when she read me Google AI summaries or “oh, that’s not real though” when she’d show me a slop YouTube short. So it’s not like she didn’t get that I disapproved, and I think part of the reason for the reversal was probably for my benefit specifically. I’ve always been careful not to make any demands on her about things that aren’t my business. If she wants to consume slop content, that’s not really on me to correct. (To express concern, maybe, but not to demand she changes how she stewards her own brain.) But I don’t want that shit infecting my brain with LLM-hallucinated misconceptions, and I’ve been careful to make it clear that the boundaries I’m setting are where she ends and I begin. I’m not trying to control her, I’m trying to control me.

Second, I usually try to avoid making predictions about the future, but more and more voices are saying now that there’s a strong possibility the AI bubble will pop within a couple of years. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc are all giving away LLM access at a huge loss. They’ve already bumped prices and gamed the system to extract more revenue, but it isn’t enough. At some point they’ll have to either shutter their generative AI efforts or start charging what they actually cost (and then shutter their generative AI efforts when it becomes even more clear that virtually nobody is willing to pay anywhere near that). Assuming that all goes down the way I’m hoping, at that point your girlfriend may well basically lose access to LLMs. (Running LLMs locally is a little cheaper in the long run, but there’s a steep effort curve and a steep up-front-cost curve (not to mention ongoing power usage bills) to get anything that even the boosters would call acceptable results. I doubt any significant portion of people using LLMs today will undertake such and effort or cost.) All that to say, there’s a strong possibility she’ll quit using Generative AI just by virtue of an impending massive bubble pop.

I dunno. I probably am not one to take advice from when it comes to relationships (or economics, for that matter). You’ll have to decide how to address and/or deal with this issue yourself. I told you what I did and what resulted. I think boundaries, done properly, are generally a good thing. I didn’t think it would work for me to pretend I was fine with being force-fed slop frequently and it worked out. But whatever you end up doing, I hope your situation resolves similarly positively. Good luck.

Wikipedia has a known set of ideological bias

If “holotropic breathwork can be dangerous” is bias, then everyone else seems “biased” as well.

I did a DDG search for “holotropic breathwork” and looked at the first 5 (actually 6 because one wouldn’t load) links for references to hand and face cramping and to any dangerous effects:

• “If not done carefully, holotropic breathing can cause reduced carbon dioxide and other alterations in blood chemistry that can lead to dizziness, fainting, weakness, spasms of the hands and feet, and even seizures.” “For anyone considering trying holotropic breathing, it is a good idea to discuss possible risks with your healthcare provider before embarking on this alternative practice, especially if you have any of the following conditions: [long list that I’ll omit]”. The “if not done carefully” if taken out of context seems at first perhaps to support your take that it’s only dangerous if done wrong. But the second quote I gave makes it clear that even “doing it right” if you have, say, seizures or heart disease is in fact “doing it wrong”. I.e. it’s dangerous for some individuals. (Such as Michael Pollan who has a history of heart disease.)
• <page wouldn’t load for me>
• “Talk to your doctor before attending if you have: [list omitted]”
• “The physiological effects—tingling, temporary muscle cramping—resolve when normal breathing resumes. Certain conditions (cardiovascular disease, seizure history, pregnancy, among others) require medical consultation first.”
• “This practice is not recommended for individuals with: Heart conditions… Neurological disorders… Severe mental health conditions… Pregnancy” Doesn’t mention hand/face cramping.
• “You’ll want to avoid this type of breathwork if you have a history of: Cardiovascular issues, high blood pressure…”. Also doesn’t mention hand/face cramping.

If your take is that it’s always safe for everyone “if done correctly”, then your take is the outlier, not mine.

…holotropic breathwork specifically as uniquely dangerous as compared to any other kind of breathwork…

I never said anything about whether other kinds of breathwork are or aren’t (sometimes, comparatively) dangerous.

…don’t single out one narrow practice…

If I said “boxing carries a risk of concussion”, would you say I was “singling it out” from among other sports that also carry a risk of concussion? (MMA, American football, etc.) I’m not singling anything out. I said nothing about whether ther other forms of breathwork carry risks or not. I’m only “singling out” doing holotropic breathwork from (all else being equal) not doing holotropic breathwork.

…based on one experience you had…

Read more carefully. I never said I believed holotropic breathwork to be dangerous in some cases from my own experience. I said quite the opposite. My own experience didn’t harm me. Taken in isolation, my own experience supports your assertion that it’s safe (though taken in isolation, it’s only an anecdote, so hardly conclusive proof that it’s safe for everyone). I believed holotropic breathwork to be potentially dangerous in some cases before my own experiment and before reading How to Change Your Mind. Neither of those were what convinced me. The preponderance of writings I’d found on the topic did and continue to.

Speaking of which, you’ll notice that Michael Pollin says that it’s CO2 levels in the blood, not holotropic breathwork specifically…

Michael Pollan (whose name you keep misspelling) did specifically call the practice he’d been led in “holotropic breathwork” in the passage I quoted.

And so does Ketoacidosis - the keto diet…

The keto diet causing ketoacidosis is not typical. The keto diet (purposefully) causes “ketosis”, but that’s distinct from ketoacidosis. Ketosis doesn’t alter blood pH. Wikipedia: “While ketosis refers to any elevation of blood ketones, ketoacidosis is a specific pathologic condition that results in changes in blood pH and requires medical attention.”.

…so had his experiment been about the keto diet, he would have had the same results.

If he had risk factors for the keto diet putting him in ketoacidosis, maybe. The keto diet can be dangerous in some cases. “Doing it right” is only safe if “doing it right” includes taking into account any risk factors one might have and being open to abstaining if the risk is too high. (And even then, the risk would never be zero.) Which is exactly what I’ve been saying about holotropic breathwork. Michael Pollan had exactly some of the risk factors which could make holotropic breathwork dangerous for him. Whether he has additional risk factors that would contraindicate the keto diet for him, I don’t know, nor do I know if his heart condition would specifically contraindicate the keto diet absent other conditions.

But if you’re running into negative experiences…

Again, you’re reading what I said and making up your own interpretation exactly contrary to what I said. I never said I had a negative experience beyond being “scared” and “weirded out” enough to end the experiment. (Mind you, I knew to expect the hand/face cramping as it had been mentioned in a lot of material that I had read on the topic.) I didn’t have any of the sort of “theraputic” effects that are the reason why people who seek holotropic breathwork seek it. But again, nothing negative came of the experience.

…what was the difference between what you did and the people that have a lovely time?

Again, my best guess is “I might have gotten into more of that territory had I kept going longer”.

And you can’t really call a guy that wrote This if Your Mind on Plants and takes mescaline and goes off caffeine as not willing to try anything.

Sure. I’ll concede the point. I’m not sure what that has to do with the rest of the conversation, though.

…you should say just “some breathwork has potential dangers.”

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying across three comments now.

If you jump in a pool and to pranayama and breath retention and pass out, you can drown. Which was in Scott Carney’s book about Wim Hof. Not ideal, right? Yet, not holotropic, either. Second, eating a sandwich can lead to choking and death. Eating shellfish can lead to negative reactions and death. Eating too many eggs can lead to death.

Just in: things that aren’t holotropic breathwork can be dangerous in some cases, ergo holotropic breathwork isn’t.

I’m asking you to be specific and look at what you’re calling dangerous and why. Take a step back and be objective and specific.

I have been. You just don’t seem to comprehend written English.