Let's assume we're skipping the ethical and moral concerns about LLM usage and just discuss the technical.

it makes an impression on me as if human code would be free of such errors

Nobody who knows anything about coding is claiming human code is error free, that's why code reviews, testing and all the other aspects of the software development lifecycle exist.

To me it sounds like nobody should ever trust AI code

Nobody should trust any code unless it can be verified that it does what is required consistently and predictably.

because there can or will be mistakes you can’t see, which is reasonably careful at best and paranoid at worst

This is a known thing, paranoia doesn't really apply here, only subjectively appropriate levels of caution.

Also it's not that they can't be seen, it's just that the effort required to spot them is greater and the likelihood to miss something is higher.

Whether or not these problems can be overcome (or mitigated) remains to be seen, but at the moment it still requires additional effort around the LLM parts, which is why hiding them is counterproductive.

At some point there is no difference anymore between “it looks fine” and “it is fine”.

This is important because it's true, but it's only true if you can verify it.

This whole issue should theoretically be negated by comprehensive acceptance criteria and testing but if that were the case we'd never have any bugs in human code either.

Personally i think the "uncanny valley code" issue is an inherent part of the way LLM's work and there is no "solution" to it, the only option is to mitigate as best we can.

I also really really dislike the non-declarative nature of generated code, which fundamentally rules it out as a reliable end to end system tool unless we can get those fully comprehensive tests up to scratch, for me at least.

Think of it like a jeweller suddenly announcing they were going to start mixing in blood diamonds with their usual diamonds "good luck finding them".

Functionally, blood diamonds aren't different.

Leaving aside that you might not want blood diamonds, are you really going to trust someone who essentially says "Fuck you, i'm going to hide them because you're complaining"

If you don't know what blood diamonds are, it's easily searchable.

I'll go on record as saying the aesthetic diamond industry is inflationist monopolist bullshit, but that doesn’t alter the analogy

Secondly, it seems you don't really understand why LLM generated code can be problematic, i'm not going to go in to it fully here but here's a relevant outline.

LLM generated code can (and usually does) look fine, but still not do what it's supposed to do.

This becomes more of an issue the larger the codebase.

The amount of effort needed to find this reasonable looking, but flawed, code is significantly higher than just reading a new dev's version.

Hiding where this code is makes it even harder to find.

Hiding the parts where you really should want additional scrutiny is stupid and self-defeating.

What you're describing is skill atrophy, it's just in skills you don't value.

It's also skill acquisition/reinforcement for skill you do value.

If you saw harassment in that first exchange then whatever you mean by "you people" is a group I’m fine with being in.

That's some thin skin.

So any disagreement should be met with immediate forking?

No raising of grievances, just silence and then forking?

Or is it only silence and forking for open source?

As soon as anyone is paid then comments are allowed ?

Kind feels like a reductive half-answer, but you do you.

The only owl that is not superb

Iirc the situation is similar in the UK, for hunting and "pest control"

Technically there should be some legal recourse, perhaps jail, whether or not that comes to pass is subject to the same shenanigans law enforcement usually comes with.

But that isn't what they were saying, they were saying that in japan almost no-one is allowed guns so the likelihood that a person was defending their house with a legal gun is very low.

I agree it wasn't totally clear.

By the sound of it, the disagreement is mostly in how direct an impact AB1043 will have on government plans for data collection and authoritarianism.

That's not really the original disagreement i was referencing, nor is it a position i've taken, we agree that the local only bill isn't the big bad.

You twice referenced the slippery slope fallacy when replying to comments clearly describing future actions, i was pointing out that it doesn't meet that criteria because there is a reasonable assumption that the described escalation will occur.

Your original responses to which i was referring:

This is a slippery slope falicy. Just because the option is provided to self-identify age, doesn’t mean that it will be replaced with more complex and direct data collection (which I am against, if it wasn’t clear) later

You’re again relying on slipery slope falacy to say that because I’m okay with this one specific form of age gating, I’m okay with every other one, which I have repeatedly made clear is not true.

The first one is the main issue i was pointing out, the second one isn't how the fallacy is applied at all.

As no one is taking the position that AB1043 is the actual danger most of what you are arguing doesn't really apply.

Similarly with the Overton window, where it has been standard practice for over a decade to have a “are you at least 18?” popup, and for every single service to ask you your age, if not more. We absolutely need more data protections for systems such as this (ideally an outright ban on saving this information) but this doesn’t seem to make it worse.

Emphasis mine.

Hard disagree, moving the responsibility of this from individual websites to the OS is a big jump in scope.

The same kind of jump as making it the ISP's responsibility if they serve illegal content from individual websites ( as has been suggested ).

Aside from that it centralises the surface area for future changes and enforcement.

Basically, from my understanding, this isn’t a step towards data collection or authoritarianism, and provides no significant benifit to either of those causes - its effectively a technical standard.

This is the disagreement, i (and obviously many others) are pointing at the long and comprehensive list of similar initiatives, both recent and historic, that were stepping stones to further encroachment and saying "oh look another small step in the continued and provable encroachment upon privacy" and you seem to be advocating for the benefit of the doubt.

Like, if this age-verification flag was proposed by the Linux Foundation, and agreed to by others, would the backlash be this big?

If the linux foundation had the same history of shenanigans, then yes.

Similarly, I don’t see any contradition between wanting a ban on storage/sharing of user data, and the implementation of a flag like this - even if we are able to ban all storage of user data, this law would be unaffected. That’s what I’m trying to figure out - how do people think that this leads towards those end goals? How would blocking it improve anything?

Ignore the technical implementation of this one step, nobody is saying this is the endgame big bad.

Think of it as a prevention measure, a single ant in the kitchen isn't a problem in and of itself, but it's almost certainly an indication of a larger potential future problem.

You are arguing it's not a problem because the ant only has 5 legs, everyone else is saying the leg count doesn't matter it's still an ant.

Is it just a difference in opinion about the signicance of the Overton window?

See above

Is there a technical aspect I’m missing?

Not necessarily , it's just that you are arguing a single technical issue in a conversation about perceived intentionality.

Is there some legal advantage this provides to survailance that I’ve missed?

See above

Right now, it seems like everyone is arguing against a strawman, implying that I support the idea of government/corporate surveillance and censorship, that I don’t expect that they’ll continue to be evil, or they’re simply saying its bad because its cosmetically similar to laws that do impede on freedoms. Given how unanimous the backlash is, I must be missing something?

That you are using a point nobody disagrees with to imply correctness in a context where said point doesn't really apply makes it seem like you are coming at this in bad faith.

When bad faith is assumed, people look for underlying reasons.

Or the avocado is bland? not all avocado are built equally.

I would hedge that the penis consists of more than just regular skin there is a fair amount of erectile tissue in there as well, though i can't vouch for a scientific difference is the taste experience.

In the case of ducks, that's quack on quack crime