[solarkraft]

So they’re just kind of implying a relationship between the 2 things?

Maybe there is one, but it doesn’t support the underlying “and that must mean AI bad” hypothesis as much as the author may think.

Somebody on the Rsync team has a new tool. They may have neglected their traditional responsibilities using it, but that’s not really a fault of the tool.

[adrian_b]

I agree that it is not a fault of the tool, but of the human who must have used it improperly.

However, rsync is one of those applications where correctness has an extreme importance. If it fails completely, that is still not so bad, but any kind of subtle corruption in file data or in file metadata can be catastrophic.

I expect from an rsync developer a much higher standard for program correctness verification than for most other computer applications, so these events are very worrisome.

I do not care whether someone uses an AI tool, but I care very much about whether any written code, regardless of its author, is verified very thoroughly, or not.

[delusional]

> Maybe there is one, but it doesn’t support the underlying “and that must mean AI bad” hypothesis as much as the author may think.

It's a tweet. Do you expect thorough null-hypothesis validation from a tweet?

[rzmmm]

My guess is just open source maintainers trying out new genAI tools out of curiosity. Unintentional slopification