This reads to me like a case of blame on both sides. Putting data you don't want to lose in ~/.cache is PEBKAC, but if that fact is incidental and NeoVim would have removed the undo history regardless of its filesystem path, then the point remains valid that NeoVim is deleting user data that isn't its place to delete.
A lot of the comments here are getting caught up in legal arguments which may or may not be valid. Those are irrelevant. No one is taking the NeoVim developers to court; the post is merely warning that they knowingly accepted behavior which can cause harm. The question is whether or not that choice was responsible, not whether it's legally actionable.
I'd argue that the difference is often just semantics. In general, I can do a better job on a given task in a week than a day. If I only have a day, but AI lets me do in that day what would have otherwise taken a week, then the result is better while my time expenditure remains constant.
Exactly. LLMs are excellent tools for compressing the time needed to produce a given body of text.
Sure they can also be used for outsourcing the writing process and producing text that doesn't resemble your own voice, just as any tool can be used for multiple purposes. Tools aren't responsible for how particular humans choose to use them.
Your process is similar in spirit to mine, although mine is a bit more fluid. I don't think it's necessary to disqualify words and phrases based on provenance per se, but rather on whether they're genuinely the correct words for what I intend to say and how I intend to say it. That's basically the test I use; if I know that I've intentionally chosen every detail of the text, that I've maintained consistency with my own manner of writing and speaking, and that I've faithfully encoded my own bona fide thoughts, then as far as I'm concerned it's my writing and I see no need to qualify that based on whatever tools may or may not have been used.
Interestingly, I've been noticing almost the opposite issue. 5.6 Sol frequently starts its responses with "Yes" even when my prompt doesn't contain a yes-or-no question.
I've been noticing the same thing since 5.4- it starts with "Yes" yet I haven't asked a question. I think it might be related to the reasoning, like it's answering its own questions?
It's been happening for years, and it does seem to be entirely related to its background reasoning leaking out of the context and into the output.
The "It's not X, it's Y"-style repetition is another example of that: It argues with itself in the background, and the argument leaks out as if in refutation of things that you (the human) never had imparted into discussion at all.
Agreed, I think it's a mistake to treat "cable" as the entire product category here. It's a (dying) subset of the product category, not the whole category. Like internet and cellular service, SOTA television content as a whole hasn't ever really been cheaper than it is today.
A lot of the comments here are getting caught up in legal arguments which may or may not be valid. Those are irrelevant. No one is taking the NeoVim developers to court; the post is merely warning that they knowingly accepted behavior which can cause harm. The question is whether or not that choice was responsible, not whether it's legally actionable.