▲ 9 ▼ Would you use a duplicate finder for your vault export? Deciding whether to build one. (github.com) submitted 1 month ago by Ildana@lemmy.world to c/bitwarden@discuss.tchncs.de 6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago (3 children) If it involves ai, absolutely not. permalink fedilink source hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Fair, and thanks for saying it plainly. Which part bothers you, the tool being written with AI help, or AI anywhere near the vault? The second never happens. No model sees an export in either route. Route B does use AI twice: one builds the script on your machine, and a second, different one reviews the code before you run it. Only the code is shown to it. Route A has none of that. It's a plain script you can read top to bottom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) I see zero ethical use of ai. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago I completely understand and won't try to talk you out of it, because I'd wager we have non-differing views on the topic. I was an early adopter, and I hold a healthy respect for AI. My company emphasizes augment, not replace. To the tool itself: option A is a plain script, no model involved at any point, readable top to bottom. If it gets built you can use it or ignore it, but nothing in it needs your trust in AI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children) Fair, and thanks for saying it plainly. Which part bothers you, the tool being written with AI help, or AI anywhere near the vault? The second never happens. No model sees an export in either route. Route B does use AI twice: one builds the script on your machine, and a second, different one reviews the code before you run it. Only the code is shown to it. Route A has none of that. It's a plain script you can read top to bottom. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) I see zero ethical use of ai. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago I completely understand and won't try to talk you out of it, because I'd wager we have non-differing views on the topic. I was an early adopter, and I hold a healthy respect for AI. My company emphasizes augment, not replace. To the tool itself: option A is a plain script, no model involved at any point, readable top to bottom. If it gets built you can use it or ignore it, but nothing in it needs your trust in AI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) I see zero ethical use of ai. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago I completely understand and won't try to talk you out of it, because I'd wager we have non-differing views on the topic. I was an early adopter, and I hold a healthy respect for AI. My company emphasizes augment, not replace. To the tool itself: option A is a plain script, no model involved at any point, readable top to bottom. If it gets built you can use it or ignore it, but nothing in it needs your trust in AI. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ildana@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 1 month ago I completely understand and won't try to talk you out of it, because I'd wager we have non-differing views on the topic. I was an early adopter, and I hold a healthy respect for AI. My company emphasizes augment, not replace. To the tool itself: option A is a plain script, no model involved at any point, readable top to bottom. If it gets built you can use it or ignore it, but nothing in it needs your trust in AI. permalink fedilink source parent