> If you as a person outsourced your thinking than it's you who will suffer.
Using a code generator != outsourcing your thinking. I know that's the popular opinion, and yes, you can use it that way. But if you do that, I agree you'll suffer. It'll make sub-optimal design decisions, and produce bloated code.
But you can use code generators and still be the one doing the thinking and making the decisions in the end. And maintain dictatorial control over the final code. It just depends on how you use it.
In many ways, it's like being a tech lead. If you outsource your thinking, you won't last very long.
It's a tool, you're the one wielding it, and it takes time, skill and experience to use it effectively.
I don't really have much more to say. I just spoke up because someone who built something cool was getting beat up unnecessarily, and I've seen this happen on HN way too many times recently. I wasn't pointing fingers at you at any point, I'm glad to have had this discussion :)
> this is presumably a 16k loc project that was commited in a single commit two days ago. So the author never commited any draft/dev version in the time
It's quite common to work locally and publish a "finished" version (even if you use source control). The reasons can vary, but I highly doubt that Google wrote Tilt Brush in 3 commits - https://github.com/googlevr/tilt-brush
All I'm saying is assuming everyone one-shots code (and insulting them like people do on HN), is unnecessary. I'm not referring to you, but it's quite a common pattern now, counter to HN's commenting guidelines.
> found AI-like comments in the code
Sure, but respectfully, so what? Like I posted in a [separate comment](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47057690), code generators are like power tools. You don't call a carpenter sloppy because they use power tools to drill or cut things. A sloppy carpenter will be sloppy regardless, and a good carpenter will obsess over every detail even if they use power tools. A good carpenter doesn't need to prove their worth by screwing in every screw by hand, even if they can. :)
In some cases, code generators are like sticks of dynamite - they help blow open large blocks of the mountain in one shot, which can then be worked on and refined over time.
The basic assumption that annoys me is to assume that anyone who uses AI to generate code is incompetent and that their work is of poor quality. Because that assumes that people just one-shot the entire codebase and release it. An experienced developer will mercilessly edit code (whether written by an AI or by a human intern), and edit it until it fits the overall quality and sensibility. And large projects have tones of modules in them, it's sub-optimal to one-shot them all at once.
For e.g. with tests, I've written enough tests in my life that I don't need to type every character from scratch each time. I list the test scenarios, hit generate, and then mercilessly edit the output. The final output is exactly what I would've written anyway, but I'm done with it faster. Power tool. The final output is still my responsibility, and I obsessively review every character that's shipped in the finished product - that is my responsibility.
Sure plenty of people one-shot stuff, just like plenty of Unity games are asset flips, and plenty of YouTube videos are just low-effort slop.
> something that the original author did not even bother to write
Again, this is an assumption. If I give someone bullet points (the actual meat of the content), and someone else puts them into sentences. Did the sentences not reflect my actual content? And is the assumption that the author didn't read what was finally written, and edit it until it reflected the exact intent?
In this case, the author says they used AI to generate the ASCII art in question. How does that automatically mean that the author AI-generated the entire readme, let alone the entire project? I agree, the knee-jerk reactions are way out of proportion.
Where do you draw the line? Will you not use grammar tools now? Will you not use translation tools (to translate to another language) in order to communicate with a foreign person? Will that person argue back that "you" didn't write the text, so they won't bother to read it?
Should we stop using Doxygen for generating documentation from code (because we didn't bother with building a nice website ourselves)?
Put simply, I don't understand the sudden obsession with hammering every nail and pressing every comma by hand, whereas we're clearly okay with other tools that do that.
Should we start writing assembly code by hand now? :)
For what it's worth - for people who're in this space - this project is awesome, and I hope you keep going with it! The compiler space for GPUs really needs truly open-source efforts like this.
Code/doc generators are just another tool. A carpenter uses power tools to cut or drill things quickly, instead of screwing everything manually. That doesn't mean they're doing a sloppy job, because they're still going to obsessively pore over every detail of the finished product. A sloppy carpenter will be sloppy even without power tools.
So yeah, I don't think it's worth spending extra effort to please random HN commenters, because the people who face the problem that you're trying to solve will find it valuable regardless. An errant bold or pipe symbol doesn't matter to people who actually need what you're building.
I keep hoping that low-effort comments like these will eventually get downvoted (because it's official HN policy). I get that it's fashionable to call things AI slop, but please put some effort into reading the code and making an informed judgment.
It's really demeaning to call someone's hard work "AI slop".
What you're implying is that the quality of the work is poor. Did you actually read the code? Do you think the author didn't obsessively spend time over the code? Do you have specific examples to justify calling this sloppy? Besides a misaligned "|" symbol?
And I doubt you even read anything because the author never talked about LLMs in the first place.
My beef isn't with you personally, it's with this almost auto-generated trend of comments on HN calling everyone's work "AI slop". One might say, low-effort comments like these are arguably "AI slop", because you could've generated them using GPT-2 (or even simple if-conditionals).
> Google is acting here as the owner and maintainer of a services ecosystem...
> they increasingly experience difficulty to contain issues within that ecosystem and prevent them from spreading (piracy, malware, hacking,...)
I wonder if the smartphone app industry is big enough now that allowing just two corporates to govern them is no longer fair or democratic.
It has outgrown the "ecosystem" word a long time ago. It's a genuine industry now.
Apps are such a fundamental part of most people's lives now (whether they like it or not), and these two companies have a disproportionate amount of power over an entire industry.
It figures out the correct torch to install on the user's PC, factoring in the OS (Win, Linux, Mac), the GPU vendor (NVIDIA, AMD, Intel) and the GPU model (especially for ROCm, whose configuration varies per generation and ROCm version).
And it tries to support quite a number of older GPUs as well, which are pinned to older versions of torch.
It's used by a few cross-platform torch-based consumer apps, running on quite a number of consumer installations.
I'm trying to understand this topic more, so I'm curious what you mean by the word tracking. I searched around, and wanted to check if my understanding is roughly correct:
Is tracking when the frequency data of the instrument, and the frequency+tempo changes in the music track are stored? And does midi just say "guitar" or "piano" and leave it up to the software to decide what those instruments sound like? So tracking would always reproduce the same sound, while midi can vary, even if it's making the same tones?
For e.g. an acoustic guitar and an electric guitar might both be producing a note at a particular base frequency (e.g. C2) but the overtones and amplitudes of those overtones would be completely different, giving each instrument their particular sound. So does tracking record that overtone distribution for each instrument, to ensure an acoustic guitar sounds like an acoustic guitar (that the music composer wanted)?
Hi, I'm the author of the cmdr2 UI and installer (that iFire linked to). I'd be happy to contribute the 1-click installer used by my project. It's a battle-hardened installer (over 100k installations on all kinds of PCs and networks), and I'm finishing up a rewrite in python, so that the installer code is easier to maintain for others.
I'd be happy to submit a PR to your project, if you're interested in using it. I actually got it working with your project a few weeks ago, so I know it works with your repo.
Like I mentioned elsewhere, https://github.com/cmdr2/stable-diffusion-ui is pretty popular, and is a 1-click installer for Win and Linux (Mac coming soon). Quite a lot of features, and well-liked by users for its easy-to-install and user-friendly GUI.
https://github.com/cmdr2/stable-diffusion-ui is pretty popular, and is a 1-click installer for Win and Linux (Mac coming soon). Quite a lot of features, and well-liked by users for its easy-to-install and user-friendly GUI.
Thanks! This worked for me finally. The conda approach suggested elsewhere was getting too complicated, and wasn't working properly (for me).
I built a simple UI around this, which installs Stable Diffusion's docker image, and lets you play with it locally in a browser-based UI. https://github.com/cmdr2/stable-diffusion-ui
You can try https://github.com/cmdr2/stable-diffusion-ui . It installs Stable Diffusion to your local computer, and provides a simple browser-based UI for playing with it. No need to mess with conda and other environment settings.
Using a code generator != outsourcing your thinking. I know that's the popular opinion, and yes, you can use it that way. But if you do that, I agree you'll suffer. It'll make sub-optimal design decisions, and produce bloated code.
But you can use code generators and still be the one doing the thinking and making the decisions in the end. And maintain dictatorial control over the final code. It just depends on how you use it.
In many ways, it's like being a tech lead. If you outsource your thinking, you won't last very long.
It's a tool, you're the one wielding it, and it takes time, skill and experience to use it effectively.
I don't really have much more to say. I just spoke up because someone who built something cool was getting beat up unnecessarily, and I've seen this happen on HN way too many times recently. I wasn't pointing fingers at you at any point, I'm glad to have had this discussion :)