you calling yourself a philosopher is akin to a chihuahua calling itself a wolf. You’re a demagogue at best.

yes, being able to differentiate beings you’re interacting with is a sign of intelligence (which is present amongst most animals, so the bar is very low), as it shows the depth at which you perceive the world around you. Sorry that it insults you. If you can’t be bothered to do so little, i doubt you’d manage to produce anything thought-provoking.

that “someone” was me. If your reading comprehension is so lacking, that you can’t even read a username, your words have as much credibility as a baby babble.

Words are polysemous.

Cool, and? It’s the first time i’m hearing someone use the term “omnipotent” not in its most literal sense. I bet i’m not the only one.

it’s normal to use “significant” with a different sense than when you’re speaking about something else.

Because “significant” is an abstract term, not a concrete one. “Omnipotent” is a concrete term though, and a pretty straightforward one at that. The only time you’d unironically use it not in its most literal sense would be to mislead people.

Yes, lots of words have multiple meanings. “Omnipotent” is hardly one of them, and even then, as you’ve already noted yourself, the bible doesn’t use it directly. People derive this characteristic of Christian God from his actions, and when they talk about god’s omnipotence, they use the word in its literal sense. People here also were using the literal meaning of the word.

Idk about you, but where I’m from, there’s a saying: “terms aren’t argued over, they’re agreed upon”. People here colloquially used the term “omnipotent” as a substitute for “all powerful”, until you chimed in with your “uhm acshually ☝️🤓” remark, offering an arbitrary and dubious definition, basically solving a non-existent problem.

what’s that philological argument? “Trust me bro”? The cambridge dictionary’s definition of the word omnipotent is literally

having unlimited power and able to do anything

It both is the most common definition of the word, and the most logical one, based off its components literal meaning, whereas yours is dubious, misleading and requires you to define the “maximum power”. In other words its inferior according to the Occam’s Razor.

You see, I’m not refusing the definition you’re giving. I say that using it, rather than the definition of the term people usually assume hearing it is misleading at best. In other words, what you’re doing can be considered a demagogy.

Whether the term appears in the bible is immaterial to this discussion, because what the bible does, is it attempts at describing an omnipotent being, as said being creates the world, and then does some stuff that breaks the laws of physics and logic.

if “omnipotent” doesn’t mean “can do literally anything”, then “real” doesn’t necessarily mean “exists in our reality” either.

You can squirm and manipulate the terms however you’d like, just know that nobody in the right mind would take your words seriously if you do that. If a manual needs to be interpreted, it’s a bad manual. Any religion is just a fiction, pretending to be non-fiction. Same kinda thing as horrors with “based on real events” tagline, just turned up a few notches.

If a fiction needs interpretation and head-canons to be coherent, it’s a bad fiction. The Bible is just bad from a literary standpoint, fiction or non-fiction. Its authors failed miserably at portraying a being that is so potent, it created literally everything.

With all due respect, philosophy isn’t a fucking science unlike linguistics.

I have only bad memories of jack headphones. There always were cable issues.

[…] He used unproven error-prone technology […]

I’d say, there was plenty of time for people, including Linus, to understand its limits, especially considering that before introducing current AI policy to the kernel maintainers, he used it for his personal project.

Human-written code is just as error-prone and unreliable, even if it is written by the most experienced dev there is. Do i really need to explain that your own ability to write quality code varies, based off countless factors that affect your mental state? John Dev didn’t have his breakfast — boom! Uncaught race condition, segfault, or some other critical bug, or safety vulnerability is introduced into prod.

What i’m saying is, unreliability of the submitted code is a problem as old as coding itself. It’s a well known one, hence all the static analysis tools developed over the decades, code reviews, hell, even opensource itself partially exists to solve this very issue. The fact that the bugs were caught is the living proof of just that.

If Linus was as smart as you seem to believe […]

“Smart” doesn’t mean “omniscient”, doesn’t mean “makes no mistakes”. “Smart” is not some kind of divine status. He’s still human, he still gets tired, his focus still can dwindle, and important things still slip his mind.

The code looked good, he got fooled and here we are.

That’s your speculation, probably based off your own experience. Neither of us know the exact circumstances, by which the discussed bugs were introduced.

Ergo, you should leave as little places for AI to make mistakes, undiagnosable by static analysis tools, as possible. In other words, make all the technical and algorithmic decisions yourself.

i’m too autistic to understand, whether this is a sarcasm

[…] if a human makes a mistake it’s a learning opportunity.

As per Linux kernel AI policy (and a common fucking sense), you’re the one responsible for the code that is submitted from your side, regardless of the tools and pipeline you use. Now get this, when an agent makes a mistake, that you didn’t notice, that’s still a learning opportunity, especially when you’re held accountable for the fuck up.

Also, LLMs don’t necessarily generate good code. They excel at generating good-looking mediocre code.

True… When you give them a general task that involves solution of technical problems and decision making. But when it’s a concrete “do the x thing over here, using this, this, and this”, which is then accompanied by your manual review of the changes, they actually do fine, basically allowing you to minimize the tedium, while not robbing you of the most interesting and important parts of development.

Did Linus’s pipeline look like what i described, tho, when he introduced the aforementioned bugs? Was it his technical decision that, by proxy, introduced bugs? I don’t know. Regardless of the answers, he’s a grown-ass man, and thus is responsible for the consequences of his decisions.

Is he more likely to introduce a bug now that he uses AI? Only time will show. I might be wrong, but i think Linus is too smart for it to be the case.