http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60241 --- Comment #16 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Olivier F. R. Dierick from comment #13)
Spending token to get an AI to review the code located at a project URL, and then sending the result to the project team, is not "doing the work". Did the OP read and analyze that code review, validate and triage each issue (or even a single one)? No. All the work has yet to be done.
Energy was spent so some work was done. Determining actual useful work vs wasted energy will be needed to further expose over-inflated AI bubbles. Assuming and treating AI/LLM reports as wasteful may be valid but whoever does so should be willing to do their duty of exposing the waste. Negative attitudes toward anyone not undermining AI bubbles and motives behind them are understandable so being a jerk at best may feel like a form of tough love. However AI is forced upon folks now more than ever ironically limiting choices and opportunities so empathizing with their situation may help. It's a pity intelligence seems ever degraded by and conflated with the artificial that disregards cost benefit analysis that wisers may have considered not worth the waste but it will take another paradigm shift to escape latest state of slop-overflow. Inability to cite/credit sources and tendency to plagiarize seems the major flaw (by design) meant to sell intelligence vs other less hyped tools and seems the root of the problem of deciding how to treat the HTML report. If AI/LLMs were more transparent then they may be treated as more trustworthy especially regarding risks around WineHQ's current LLM policy. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.