[krainboltgreene]

Probably because a human authored contribution, no matter how bad, can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

[mexicocitinluez]

> can be trained to make it good and also improves the community.

AI can be trained. Also, AI can create code that improves the community. It's replies like this that leave me even more confused.

[skydhash]

Human being trained is already proven (that’s how most maintainers came to be). Can you explain how AI can be trained in the above context?

[mexicocitinluez]

lol Human beings are famously not already trained.

[krainboltgreene]

> AI can be trained.

I don't have access to a data center's worth of GPUs, unfortunately. You offering yours?

[mexicocitinluez]

So when you said "AI cant be trained" you didn't mean "AI cant be trained" you meant that you personally can't? lol.

[krainboltgreene]

I'm saying that most people, even most programmers, don't have the facilities or inclination to train new models man. I've done it plenty of times and I absolutely don't recommend it.

Frankly I don't think you even know what the phrase entails.

[mexicocitinluez]

So again, you can train people but not AI? That's literally what you've said and now moving the goal posts in a way that makes no difference to what you said being patently wrong.

It's wild having to argue with people who say demonstrably untrue things and then refuse to admit that what they said was wrong.

[krainboltgreene]

Yeah, real wild.