> I've been a Claude Pro subscriber for a long time, I'm currently on Max,

And yet no mention of "I'm going to cancel my subscription after this bad experience." Sounds like everything works out for Anthropic.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it an undeniable truth.

Ultimately, I'm just trying to get you to understand how this decision undermines the presumed goal of trying to convince the anti-AI crowd that they're wrong. It's simply not fair to expect humans to engage with the article in good faith when the article itself was not written by a human in good faith, regardless of its contents or the numbers it's based on. If you still disagree, so be it, I have nothing else to argue.

And for the record, I didn't engage with the methodology itself or its merits because I don't believe this question can be answered via an automated statistical approach, or really any sort of objective approach. The only way to truly evaluate the quality of AI generated code is for a skilled developer who is at least moderately familiar with the codebase to carefully analyze each commit, understanding what it does and looking for dumb mistakes that a human likely wouldn't have made in the same situation. But it's very unlikely that anyone will waste their time on that, and the conclusion would still be subjective anyway.

Though I haven't used it much lately, because seeing half of the front page disappear when I enable it is a bit disheartening.

I don't know who asked you to do it. I wouldn't have done it. Personally, the original intent matters far more to me. You intended to submit an AI-generated article, defending AI, to be read by humans. Anything short of taking the article down and rewriting the entire thing from scratch doesn't meaningfully change that.

> Additionally, my process is often giving it exactly what I want to say, more or less, and having it HTML-format it and insert the templated numbers and UI widgets around that text.

Sorry but you're just further proving my point here. You are so deeply invested in AI that even just manually writing some English text into a static HTML file is something you consider to be below you.

Imagine going back in time 5 years and telling someone: "In the future, nobody uses text editors. On the rare occasion that we actually want to write something to a text file verbatim, we instead recite the text to a complex artificial intelligence algorithm that uses large amounts of computing power to process said text and then recite back a command that writes the text to a file. Sometimes the algorithm decides to be a smartass and change our words or add an extra quip, but that's all part of the fun."

> That's not ignoring the bias, that's literally restating that you think the bias is there.

I was referring to the bias within the actual text of the article vs the inherent bias displayed by the very concept of an AI-generated article defending AI. Passages like these:

> The thread did not stop at words. As is typical for anti-AI users, it eventually escalated to fantasies of violence

Make it fairly obvious that you went into this project with the primary goal of proving such people wrong, possibly backed by a sense of moral superiority relative to a few weirdos on the internet who took things too far (such individuals are present in every online discussion that gets big enough, and their actions do not represent the whole).

> And you're so committed to your preconceived notions that anything made with AI must be bad, wrong, or not worth your time

"Bad" or "wrong" may be subjective, but it's definitely not worth my time, no. If you didn't consider it worth your time to write it, why do you believe it's worth someone else's time to read it? Again, it doesn't matter if you went back to rewrite parts of it after being criticized, as that doesn't change the original intent.

Submitting an AI generated article and expecting meaningful human responses only makes sense if you consider your own time to be worth more than that of others. Do you?

This statement is honestly so ridiculous that I felt it didn't warrant a direct response, but here's one anyway: AI enthusiasts have been proudly proclaiming for literal years that AI makes them 10x as productive based on cherry-picked anecdotes with zero empirical evidence to back it up. It's way, way too late to claim hypocrisy here. As I stated under the original submission about this topic, irrational anti-AI behavior is usually just an equal and opposite reaction to irrational pro-AI behavior.

> I rewrote all the prose in the entire document just to satisfy critics like you.

And that doesn't help. If anything, editing the AI output to make it read less like blatant slop just comes off as deceptive, like you're trying to hide the fact that the analysis was AI generated. Looking at the commits, you were adding more AI generated text less than 2 hours ago[0] before quickly editing out one of the most blatantly sloppy sentences I've ever read[1].

Regardless, the final contents of the article are not the main issue. Even if we ignore the bias clearly on display there, the premise alone is enough to dismiss the entire thing as heavily biased and chasing a pre-determined conclusion - of course someone who is so dependent and trustful of AI that they decide such an analysis on the bugginess of AI code should itself be written by AI is going to steer the conclusion towards "actually AI code is good and you luddites are overreacting". The entire concept is so tone-deaf that failing to notice it or predict the criticism before publishing is enough to prove the bias.

[0] https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/e029...

[1] https://github.com/alexispurslane/rsync-analysis/commit/740b...

Do you genuinely believe an article written by AI defending itself is going to convince anyone who wasn't already on your side? All you're doing is giving more fuel to the "anti-AI crowd" you hate so much.

It has nothing to do with sustainability and everything to do with cashing out a huge payday, which seems to be the end goal of everything nowadays.

> Unrelated to cron. Bad script

Again, worked fine when run manually, worked fine in a systemd timer. Pretty sure I still have it running today and it continues to work fine without ever failing.

I am not the biggest fan of systemd, but today I will always reach for a systemd timer over cron simply due to the sheer amount of bad experiences I've had with cron. Hours upon hours wasted trying to troubleshoot crons that weren't working due to some stupid obscure issue, having to use dirty hacks to monitor for success or retry failed jobs.

A few years ago I was trying to run a very simple bash script with cron and the script just died halfway through for no reason. Nothing in logs, worked fine when run directly, but in cron it just stopped halfway through a loop. Never figured out the cause, just gave up and used a timer instead, which worked fine. Never touched cron again after that.

The ease and convenience of monitoring and troubleshooting alone are worth switching over.

Before internet access became as ubiquitous as it is today, the vast majority of these scammers were stuck wallowing in their misery in their own little corner of the world, far away from you, unable to do much more than maybe call your phone.

And before the rise of LLMs, they had to write their spam by hand instead of being able to spit out thousands of customized scam messages with zero effort.

Nobody maintains this position. Again, it's a strawman you made up, because it's easier to dismiss such "absolutist nonsense" than it is to just admit that these specific bugs were introduced as a direct result of careless AI usage.

If the developer is overwhelmed by the maintenance burden (they aren't, judging by how many AI commits they've been making to a large number of repositories), then that's an entirely different problem that deserves a good faith discussion, but delegating the work to AI is not the correct solution.

> By the way, if your position is that rsync was perfect before AI got its hands on it

Again, strawman, nobody said this either. In fact, quite the opposite - we want rsync to continue to be maintained by a human. If the current developer isn't interested in or capable of maintaining the project anymore, they should just say so instead of quietly letting AI take over, because then the likelihood of someone else stepping up to contribute would be much higher.

We both know what the more likely scenario is here. We both know that AI fanatics have spent the last year bragging about how many thousands of lines of code they can pump out per hour. Do not claim otherwise, because to do so would be an insult to my intelligence. And from a quick look at the developer's Github profile, it's clear they've gone all in on the hype, as I cannot find a single significant commit made this year that is not signed by Claude. Even the most experienced developers are not immune to AI psychosis.

> You owe them for using their software. How much did you donate to rsync this year?

I don't remember reading this in the license. Could you point it out for me? I can't find any such clause.