What I think you are also seeing is AI sucking at some things and doing better than humans in others.
AI is pretty great at adding unit tests to code, for example, where humans do a just-OK job. Or in writing code for a very direct well scoped small problem.
AI is just OK at understanding product nuance and choices during larger implementations, or getting end to end coding right for any complex use cases.
Just assuming this is all true (i.e. that AI can do good and bad code outputs), why would Linux development be able to succeed at something that Microsoft (which has an insider track with AI, far more money, and far more maturity) failed at?
Sure if you only focus on the desktop market I guess you could make that argument, but IDK why you would ignore servers and phones? There are plenty of examples of Linux kicking Microsoft’s ass. You think Microsoft is happy they don’t sell server licenses for every server on earth? What about android?
Do you actually have a reason Linux will be able to pull off using AI when Microsoft cannot, or is your sole argument that Linux has done other things? Because that’s not how proof works.
My argument is they are different groups of people with completely different incentive structures, so of course they will be different. You’re acting like Microsoft is failing because they use AI, not because they have management forcing the use of AI.
I’m definitely not an “AI is going to write all the code” kind of person, but LLMs are definitely a useful tool for prototyping and other development processes. A project with a “No AI” rule is not inherently better than a project that uses AI as a tool.
Ok, let’s flip this around. You made the baseless claim that “Linux development can’t succeed where Microsoft fails” that seems pretty baseless and historically incorrect to me. But if you just want to keep trying to “win” this interaction and don’t want to have a conversation I guess there’s nothing left to say
Could be a lot of reasons. A big one i see working at a large company myself is that AI needs to draw from a lot of data to do its work. A huge amount of contextual data too. A company like MSFT inevitably needs to provide AI with a walled-off curated set of data, and prevent any of it from leaking. Its AIs will not have the same amount of data an AI can draw from outside MSFT.
Leaking? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI. They pull the data in and don’t need it to go out. The whole industry is fighting to close off competition, meaning they know they’re on top.
So do you have any reason to assume the open-source community’s use of these (closed-source) other models is somehow bucking all real-world evidence to the contrary, or are we just hoping and praying?
Motivation is powetful influence on devolopment. The linux kernel is largley driven by UX and desire for technical excellence (there are ultier motive from some major factions but overall this is true and actions are judged publically as such).
Microsoft is, like most companies, driven by stockholder value creation.
One produces an enviroment in which cautious adoption of new tech is constant, a slow trickle for use where it seems most applicable.
The other demands that the perception of exclusive capital be created through vertical intergration with propritary IP and that the promise of cost reductions are underway. Aka Microslop trying to add a buzz word to every IP (percieved capital creation) and promising massive layoffs.
Microsoft has had a lot of resources for decades and sucked at the most basic stuff the whole time. Not taking a stance on AI usage here, just saying that the idea that a company having more money is rarely connected to the quality of the product they create and, in fact, chasing profits often leads to products being worse.
Do you have a reason to assume that the outsiders using proprietary insider software will do it better
What do you mean? That’s the opposite of my point.
I use Linux with ton of open source software since a decade, and it only got better, while Microsoft policies only got worse. It’s a direct empiric evidence that it works.
What I think you are also seeing is AI sucking at some things and doing better than humans in others.
AI is pretty great at adding unit tests to code, for example, where humans do a just-OK job. Or in writing code for a very direct well scoped small problem.
AI is just OK at understanding product nuance and choices during larger implementations, or getting end to end coding right for any complex use cases.
Just assuming this is all true (i.e. that AI can do good and bad code outputs), why would Linux development be able to succeed at something that Microsoft (which has an insider track with AI, far more money, and far more maturity) failed at?
If you take a step back, why would Linux development be able to succeed at all when Microsoft has far more money, more maturity, and more employees?
(Edit: Invalid comparison and misdirection.)
Sure if you only focus on the desktop market I guess you could make that argument, but IDK why you would ignore servers and phones? There are plenty of examples of Linux kicking Microsoft’s ass. You think Microsoft is happy they don’t sell server licenses for every server on earth? What about android?
What about Android…?
Sure, what about Google?
Do you actually have a reason Linux will be able to pull off using AI when Microsoft cannot, or is your sole argument that Linux has done other things? Because that’s not how proof works.
My argument is they are different groups of people with completely different incentive structures, so of course they will be different. You’re acting like Microsoft is failing because they use AI, not because they have management forcing the use of AI.
I’m definitely not an “AI is going to write all the code” kind of person, but LLMs are definitely a useful tool for prototyping and other development processes. A project with a “No AI” rule is not inherently better than a project that uses AI as a tool.
If your claim is baseless, don’t fight to make it.
Ok, let’s flip this around. You made the baseless claim that “Linux development can’t succeed where Microsoft fails” that seems pretty baseless and historically incorrect to me. But if you just want to keep trying to “win” this interaction and don’t want to have a conversation I guess there’s nothing left to say
@ExperiencedWinter@lemmy.world, my question was simple: do you have a reason to make the assumption Linux developers will succeed.
Instead, you’ve jumped to whataboutisms, misdirections (Linux exists, therefore…?), even trying to shift the burden of proof back onto the skeptic.
If you can’t back up your opinion with evidence, say so from the beginning.
Could be a lot of reasons. A big one i see working at a large company myself is that AI needs to draw from a lot of data to do its work. A huge amount of contextual data too. A company like MSFT inevitably needs to provide AI with a walled-off curated set of data, and prevent any of it from leaking. Its AIs will not have the same amount of data an AI can draw from outside MSFT.
Leaking? Microsoft basically owns OpenAI. They pull the data in and don’t need it to go out. The whole industry is fighting to close off competition, meaning they know they’re on top.
So do you have any reason to assume the open-source community’s use of these (closed-source) other models is somehow bucking all real-world evidence to the contrary, or are we just hoping and praying?
Motivation is powetful influence on devolopment. The linux kernel is largley driven by UX and desire for technical excellence (there are ultier motive from some major factions but overall this is true and actions are judged publically as such).
Microsoft is, like most companies, driven by stockholder value creation.
One produces an enviroment in which cautious adoption of new tech is constant, a slow trickle for use where it seems most applicable.
The other demands that the perception of exclusive capital be created through vertical intergration with propritary IP and that the promise of cost reductions are underway. Aka Microslop trying to add a buzz word to every IP (percieved capital creation) and promising massive layoffs.
Microsoft has had a lot of resources for decades and sucked at the most basic stuff the whole time. Not taking a stance on AI usage here, just saying that the idea that a company having more money is rarely connected to the quality of the product they create and, in fact, chasing profits often leads to products being worse.
Because development direction in open source software is decided by engineers instead of corporate politicians
Do you have a reason to assume that the outsiders using proprietary insider software will do it better, or is that just hope and prayer?
What do you mean? That’s the opposite of my point.
I use Linux with ton of open source software since a decade, and it only got better, while Microsoft policies only got worse. It’s a direct empiric evidence that it works.
The AI models are the proprietary outsider software. Which is my point
And? LLM is nothing more than a tool. It has nothing to do with politics.
You just said using proprietary outsider software was the opposite of good, now you’ve flipped to call it just a tool? Pick an opinion.
You have problem with distinction between operating system development and tools used to develop it?