I think there is a line between security, and keeping a device useful in the long term. I think the threat of people installing listening malware on the car via an evil-maid type attack is low.
However, when these cars are 10+ years old, and are in the hands of those willing to tinker, I think the ability to open up the software and customize will be a great thing. Hopefully communities form around creating modifications they find useful, and prolongs the life of the devices.
Seems much better than the end-users ripping out the factory head unit to install the Aliexpress "Android Tablet" style units, which likely have much worse security and engineering than the Honda units they'd be replacing.
I'm going almost the same direction, for the same reasons. Golang seems very interesting. Rewriting some hobby projects to get an understanding of the language and ecosystem. I'm on Node/webpack now and don't love where things are going.
Yes! This is it, thank you! I've been trying to find these for a long while. I even remember co-opting some for a Geocities page back in the day when those were kinda cool lol!
Papercuts like this are why I moved away from macOS.
I will say, I don't love the use of LLMs to write these bug reports. It's probably fine if reviewed, but at least review for things like "worked on macOS 25", which obviously didn't exist. If that wasn't caught, how sure are you that the rest of the report is accurate? We all want the bugs fixed, but people are going to start throwing out the obviously LLM written reports rather than have to validate each claim, since the author probably didn't.
Its my strong belief that using AI in any capacity which does not upfront state "the following content was generated by artificial intelligence" is never acceptable. In most situations, allowing an AI to wield your name gives off the scent of "My time is more valuable than yours, so I've automated writing to you." It is quite disgraceful. If your use-case would be materially harmed by an upfront disclosure of AI generated content, then you need to take a good, hard think on what that means for what you're doing (then again, maybe you're not interested in thinking anymore and that's how you got to this point in your life).
It’s good-faith arbitrage. Until everyone automatically suspects everything to be LLM generated and there is zero trust, anyone doing this is eroding the good faith that lets them get away with it in the first place.
1. Am I allowed to ask an AI to proofread a draft for grammatical errors?
2. Am I allowed to ask an AI to proofread a draft for technical errors?
3. In both #1 and #2, am I allowed to ask the AI to suggest revisions, or is it only allowed to point out what's wrong and why?
4. If I write a sentence like "Lucy's laughter ___ her underlying anxiety" and I'm having trouble coming up with the right word to fill in the blank, can I give the sentence to an AI and ask it for a list of possible options?
5. While brainstorming, can I use an AI as a souped up rubber duck before I begin writing?
But... AI generated content is a slippery slope. Someone earlier today asked me to "review" a 50 page document they had completely generated with AI yet obviously not reviewed themselves. It is embarrassing.
...then I guess my next question would be, why? How do you feel about spellcheck? Should mobile users turn off autocorrect unless they disclose that it's turned on?
I don't really understand your philosophy if you're opposed to an LLM pointing out when someone got the tense wrong.
GP said they weren't okay with someone using an AI to check for grammatical errors. If they would be okay with using software to check for spelling errors, I'd be interested to know why they're making that distinction. And I'd like to know what they think of autocorrect, which at least on the iPhone uses an on-device LLM nowadays.
"AI" can mean anything with machine learning. Spellchecker can use some sort of machine learning too. But what people mean when they say "AI" is LLM chatbot. But a spellchecker highlights mistakes, it doesn't suggest to rewrite the text arbitrarily like an LLM chatbot. So I totally understand how you can be for one and not other
By the way autocorrect on the iphone got worse recently, bunch of times it "corrected" the word to a wrong one for me
I agree with you when you are talking with a human in good faith. I disagree when it comes to large corporations and government officials. Often times theres a lot of red tape you have to get through and create documents that nobody on their side is actually reading. Usually this is just to discourage people from completing the action they are trying to accomplish. LLM generated content has gotten me back improperly held taxes and generated multiple extension requests where the receiver just had to check a box that they got it.
The position I think I can most simplify my beliefs in to is "it should have taken you longer to write something than the person receiving it is going to spend reading it."
That position still fits your scenario, where if they're not actually caring enough to read it then you don't need to care enough to write it, but for something like this targeted at a technical audience it's a higher bar.
Also of course the accuracy of the writing is relevant in both cases, which is something LLMs are absolutely worse than humans at, as noted in some of the comments here this article had the LLM hallucinate the existence of macOS 25 which is a mistake no human would have made while writing such an article entirely by hand.
I am genuinely curious if you are trolling, or putting that forward as a genuine argument?
Trivially, it's the difference between medium, and message/content.
On one axis, whether message is spoken, written via pen or typewriter or word processor, sent electronically, faxed,mailed, etc - it is fundamentally a communication from one human being to another, even if medium / mechanics differ.
The other axis is actual content - genuine human interaction, intent, message and connection, vs a result of a prompt.
> Same thing as using a word processor and printer rather than handwriting a note. Inexcusable.
There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.
I'm used to papercuts on every OS, but at least with a Linux box I can roll it back. Usually it's as easy as picking the previous boot menu entry (with NixOS, the whole system rolls back that way). I find macOS acceptable enough for my laptop, but I'm doing most of my real work in Linux containers anyway.
> Papercuts like this are why I moved away from macOS.
It's been this way for decades. Microsoft was known for preserving backwards compatibility, while Apple was known for being willing to break stuff.
The differences aren't that extreme in reality: Microsoft breaks stuff more than it used to, while Apple has become comparatively more conservative than once upon a time.
Yes, for the time being the final report should probably come from us (but endless opportunity along the way to clarify thinking and understand industry standard terms).
Using LLMs for any kind of writing is unethical, with the narrow exception of translation. If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
The LLM presents a perverse incentive here - It is used for perceived efficiency gains, most of which would be consumed by the act of rewriting and redrafting. The alienness of the thoughts in the document is also non-condusive to this; Reading a long document about something you think you know but did not write is exhausting and mentally painful - This is why code review has such relatively poor results.
Quite frankly, while having an LLM draft and rewriting it would be okay, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that to ever happen. It will be either like high school paper plagarism (Just change around some of the sentences and rephrase it bro), or it will simply not even get that much. It is unreasonable with what we know about human psychology to expect that "Human-Rewrites of LLM drafts", at the level that the human contributes something, are maintainable and scalable; Most people psychologically can't put in that effort.
>The LLM presents a perverse incentive here - It is used for perceived efficiency gains, most of which would be consumed by the act of rewriting and redrafting.
It might give efficiency gains for the writer, but the reader has to read the slop and try to guess at what it was intending to communicate and weed out "hallucinations". That's a big loss of efficiency for the reader.
I just can't seem to square up that the same people that complained left-and-right about "code smells" are the same ones that are shitting out slop code and are proud they shipped 50k lines of code in a week. It's going to be a maintenance nightmare for someone else. I'm not sure how anyone coming in is going to learn a codebase written by LLMs when it's 10x more code than is reasonably needed to solve the problem.
at this point I really think its better to read broken english than have to read some clanker slop. it immediately makes me want to just ignore whatever text i'm reading, its just a waste of time
I do wonder, we had pretty good (by some measure of good) machine translations before LLMs. Even better, the artifacts in the old models were easily recognized as machine translation errors, and what was better, the mistranslation artifacts broke spectacularly, sometimes you could even see the source in the translation and your brain could guess the intended meaning through the error.
With LLMs this is less clear, you don’t get the old school artifacts, instead you get hallucinations, and very subtle errors that completely alter the meaning while leaving the sentence intact enough that your reader might not know this is a machine translation error.
and not just artifacts/hallucinations, the worst thing about is the fact that its basically "perfect" English, perfect formatting, which makes it just look like grey slop, since it all sounds the same and its hard to distinguish between the slop articles/comments/PRs/whatever.
and it will also "clean up" the text to the point where important nuances and tangents get removed/transformed into some perfect literature where it loses its meaning and/or significance
I don't think that's fine, I think that's an example of why using LLMs to write is unethical and creates no value.
The purpose of written language is to express your thoughts or ideas to others. If you're synthesizing text and then refining it you're not engaging in that practice.
I disagree with the downvotes, but let me put it differently: if you don’t understand, have reviewed and be ready to own all of LLM output (the thoughtful part), then you aren’t owned the time to read them. If you didn’t try to reign in the verbose slop that’s the default for LLMs, I don’t want to read it.
Maybe the poster is running a local LLM.. you’d think that a SOTA model would have surmised that an overnight MacOS upgrade can only be a minor version.
As someone who has dealt with projects with AI-generated documentation... I can't really say I agree. Good documentation is terse, efficiently communicating the essential details. AI output is soooooooo damn verbose. What should've been a paragraph becomes a giant markdown file. I like reading human-written documentation, but AI-slop documentation is so tedious I just bounce right off.
Plus, when someone wrote the documentation, I can ask the author about details and they'll probably know since they had enough domain expertise and knowledge of the code to explain anything that might be missing. I can't trust you to know anything about the code you had an AI generate and then had an AI write documentation for.
Then there's the accuracy issue. Any documentation can always be inaccurate and it can obviously get outdated with time, but at least with human-authored documentation, I can be confident that the content at some point matched a person's best understanding of the topic. With AI, no understanding is involved; it's just probabilistically generated text, we've all hopefully seen LLMs generate plausible-sounding but completely wrong text enough to somewhat doubt their output.
* Projects can focus on code first, and do best-effort on docs for low cost
* Most of us get reasonable quality documentation, much better than what some poor developer would turn out in spare moments
* You are spared from the outrage of imperfect documentation
Gah hopefully the meaning was clear from context, but I just realized I said "latter" when I meant "former". Inconsistent human documentation is better than miles upon miles of AI-slop documentation.
Given that people have access to LLMs themselves, publishing their output in lieu of good documentation (no matter how sparse) seems like it’s mostly downside.
This immediately invalidates a software or technical project for me. The value of documentation isn't the output alone, but the act of documenting it by a person or people that understand it.
I have done a lot of technical writing in my career, and documenting things is exactly where you run into the worst design problems before they go live.
Agreed, which is why I didn't bother reading this comment before downvoting it. If you think that you were owed some other behavior from me despite not paying me for it, feel free to elaborate; for example, you could acknowledge that there exists an implicit social contract when it comes to basic human communication.
Also elitist attitudes towards people for whom English isn’t a native language, elitist attitudes towards people with dyslexia and other conditions that make writing difficult, and elitist attitudes towards people with lower education levels.
One problem I see with the broader use of LLMs these days is the death of literacy.
For example, you chose to read my response and attack the vocabulary as if that was the point I was trying to make. This is a misunderstanding. I am purposefully reusing the word choice of the comment I'm replying to.
I was trying to very concisely point out that if an LLM is generating your writing it is not your words or your thoughts that you're trying to communicate.
> If you didn't take the time to compose your words thoughtfully then you aren't owed the time to read them.
Apply this argument to code, to art, to law, to medicine.
It fails spectacularly.
Blaming the tool for the failure of the person is how you get outrageous arguments that photography cant be art, that use of photoshop makes it not art...
Do you blame the hammer or the nail gun when the house falls down, or is it the fault of the person who built it?
If you dont know what you're doing, it isnt the tools fault.
I have the chonk. 10/10 would chonk again. I miss the 12" MacBook form factor for an email/web/dumb terminal machine, though. Would love something like that with great Linux support. Bonus points for cellular.
