I guess many people don’t know how much programming has changed over the last year. GrapheneOS is doing a good job telling it like it is.

Mastodon users, yuck

They’re not using it for coding, they’re using it to review code.

No, it started with them saying it was for review, but they added any of their coders can use it if they wish.

There is really no point arguing about such details. AI haters don’t care how exactly you use AI. If you want the best, most secure software possible, you need to let the developers find whatever way there. Imposing arbitrary restrictions won’t work.

No, you need to make sure vulnerabilities aren’t introduced by lazy or underpaid developers.

I’ll grant that bosses and managers have a valid role for keeping the work on track. But someone who tries that without being qualified themself will cause major problems.

Its so annoying that all code has been perfect and bug free until these silly LLM people came and made buggy code

“Perfect and bug-free” <—————> “Chock full of slop and security holes”

This is a spectrum, but you already knew that and are just trolling.

I’m trying to highlight the absurdity of tieing buggyness to sloppyness, they are two distinct axis, not a spectrum. There are plenty of problems with LLMs but bugginess is not one of them. Idk if you’ve been watching the news lately, bug squashing in old code is up big time, can you guess why? And I wonder have you ever worked on a real codebase? Because the only perfect code is the code you wrote 5minites ago… go look at Linux kernel code… arguably the most used but of software out there, find me anything perfect in there… like what is going on here in this artisanal, hand rolled, organic code?! You’re arguing devs need more time to work on security, well guess what’s giving them more time to work on security…

Ps. Sorry to the Bluetooth dev, didn’t mean for you to catch strays, I love your code anyway!

There are plenty of problems with LLMs but bugginess is not one of them

LOOOOOOLOLOL

Idk if you’ve been watching the news lately, bug squashing in old code is up big time, can you guess why?

Lying megacorporations, most likely. What is the source of this information?

go look at Linux kernel code.. arguably the most used but of software out there, find me anything perfect in there

Please refer to my previous comment. You are once again pushing this ridiculous strawman that human written code is perfect, when no one ever said such a thing.

You’re arguing devs need more time to work on security

Nope, you made that up, too.

Fair enough bud

One look at their agents.md says otherwise

github.com/…/da7e925ebecdaa2249fabba67a6a791bb8dd…

good to see smart developers posting reasonable takes, though sad they have to spend time doing it

I’m with Linus Torvalds and GrapheneOS on this. AI is a useful tool, for all its flaws and negative externalities.

Luckily, the “negative externalities” are mostly made-up bullshit.

Layoffs are made-up?

Oh look! Another “leftist” trying to shift blame away from tariff man.

I’m not American if that is what you’re implying. Have a nice day.

Maybe I am just not understanding your direction based politics, but isn’t it the right that put him in office? Isn’t your comment backwards?

To be clear, I literally don’t know, it’s hard enough following my own country’s politics lol

Yes. Trump’s deranged acts are seriously harming the US economy but also doing a lot of damage to the global economy. Anyone who blames AI for layoffs is effectively helping Trump/the global right by covering up their incompetence and failure. To be fair, Putin’s war is also causing much harm.

Then why did you say they were leftist?

As for the layoff blame, just because I say I like hamburgers doesn’t mean I hate hotdogs. Layoffs can be happening from both those things, and just because people are acknowledging one source doesn’t mean they are helping the other source…

I said “leftist” in quotes. Almost everyone here self-identifies as being on the left, at least insofar as they oppose Trump. And yet… well.

I am skeptical if AI is already having a substantial effect on employment. In any case, I don’t think these people care. You don’t see anyone arguing for a better social safety net/unemployment benefits. Here’s someone saying that people lose their jobs over AI, but you also have people saying AI is useless. They really don’t care.

Layoffs aren’t the problem here…the problem is that society requires people generate their own worth through work, and suddenly a good chunk of that work is now significantly less valuable.

Requiring less work is a good thing. Humans should be striving to minimize work. That’s what humanity is good at.

The problem comes in that while the “input” of AI is, essentially, the collection of all human knowledge…while the output is money for a small handful of people…people who themselves contributed next to nothing to that pile of human knowledge (and in fact are probably running a deficit to it).

That ain’t right. We are all shareholders in the collection of all human knowledge. We should all be getting dividends from its work.

It should be noted that the input of all human knowledge is getting the door closed and locked behind it. Requiring you to buy tokens to access said information.

And if you refuse to provide more training data to their services that collect said data, like reddit, facebook, x, then you can’t access essentially the entire internet. With google locking down captchas to only “verified” android phones. And every website requiring you to sign up with a ID card, and locking you out when you use a VPN.

So not only will your jobs will be taken away but your autonomy and access to what used to be free information. Or not even information sometimes your job or access to a services requires you to use these things. Even just getting into your apartment with a RFID reader on your apparments official app. You have to exist in their panopitcon just to even exist in many situations.

Oh and the best part the only thing worth money in the ai industry is all your user data and how it gets fed into palantirs networks. From every single comment you make on their services, and everytime you order a cheese burger in public, that all gets logged because you are a domestic terrorist for thinking maybe we should hold these people accountable.

reduction in labour requirements are good.

The ecological damage is not made up.

It’s pretty insignificant compared to the rest of the economy. Focusing on AI to the exclusion of bigger issues is actively harmful.

It also didn’t exist at all 5 years ago. Why are we as a society allowing new ecological damage? When will we stop? The billionaires want it to be never as long as it gives them money and power.

Renewable energy makes good progress, but as you can see here, many people have other priorities.

So AI data centers are being built powered with renewable energy, right?

One rarely builds a dedicated power plant for a single building. It is more efficient to build large power plants for general use and use cable to transmit the electricity to where it is needed.

That didn’t answer by question at all, I suspect because you couldn’t think of way to twist running new gas turbine generators specifically to power these monstrosities into a good thing.

I could see that you were lacking some important background information, so I helped you out. Anything else you need?

You’re not fooling anyone lol

It’s pretty insignificant

Citation needed. You’re just straight-up lying or clueless as to what’s actually going on.

It’s not hard to look up. If you need help, ask for help politely.

That’s an “I have no idea what I’m talking about” if I ever heard one.

“Citation needed” IS polite. You claim it’s not polluting, so clearly you know the CO2 emissions numbers from SpaceX’s datacenters that are being run off direct-connect to natural gas generators. So, how about it? How “not polluting” are they?

Unfortunately, as you can see, you are in a crowd of liars. Now, I am certainly not accusing you personally of being dishonest, but it does tend to bias your audience against you. Sorry.

The numbers aren’t particularly bad. It’s not for nothing that the EU has classified natural gas as green energy.

Hey, I think ai can be a useful tool and I use both cloud hosted and local models.

The ecological impact is god awful.

Datacenters run on fossil fuel turbines to meet demand when there isn’t enough capacity on the grid or just 24/7 because the residents of the nearby municipality said they don’t want brownouts.

Fundamentally ai datacenters transform expensive to transmit electricity into cheap to transmit data, financializing what was previously a relatively insulated commodity whose pricing and production reflect local demand into a globally traded commodity whose pricing and production reflect global demand.

If you don’t have a background in the history of industry and environment: that’s bad news for the environment (and anyone who relies on stable power rates).

Production of ai computing components requires mining rare earth minerals and phenomenal amounts of power. This is the same process with nearly the same inputs as the production of general purpose computing parts (if you leave off the increased rare earths needed to mitigate electromigration in single digit nanometer processes!) but the increased demand has already brought more fabs up to meet it meaning more use of resources and energy in production before the first kilowatt of inference is run on those chips.

Turbine blades for datacenter generators are also limited by production and are currently years out for delivery. These are components produced by advanced aerospace manufacturing shops which use massive amounts of energy to shape alloys of metals that have to be yanked out of the ground and smelted into some esoteric type of steel or aluminum first.

So even without the water concerns datacenters have tremendous impact on the environment.

But the water concerns are legitimate. Swamp chillers divert flowing water into the air where it is blown anywhere but where it would have flowed. Which is fine if you aren’t downstream of one I guess.

All this is to say: if you don’t care about the impacts you can rationalize that however you like, but they exist.

It’s a matter of framing. If you compare them to older datacenters they are atrocious because they’re bigger and consume more energy. But in the grand scheme of things all things IT pale in comparison to e.g. producing beef. Now with that framing you can’t sell AI hate though because people like beef, so it’s always just comparing large datacenters to smaller datacenters with the obvious results.

That’s an awful lot of typing instead of just saying “I’m a lying liar who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s why I offer no actual data - because the actual numbers destroy my entire argument.”

The water usage “issue” has been blown out of proportion when compared to something as unnecessary as the ethanol that gets put in gasoline

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Reality altering disinformation as fact, using a machine that is essentially plagiarism incarnate? You are pushing a false narrative OP

tell that to my fucking boot looping windows 10 post update in feb

I am sure I will be down voted on Lemmy for this but using AI for development by a team who is already experienced in development of the product they are working on is not a moral failing.

My personal experience but the people who blindly bitch about AI are, quite frankly, idiots.

I use AI daily for work it’s an extremely helpful tool as you stated. I still have concerns with it.

The difference is I understand human nature and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. We need governance and standards and it needs to be a utility just like hydro, water and The Internet. There also needs to be a global UBI yesterday.

What people are bitching about with AI amount to the lack of control we the people have over it.

I’m surprised you haven’t been downvoted but I bet I will for calling a spade a spade in these people so rigidly opposed.

I don’t think anyone is “blindly bitching”. I think people have understandable concerns regarding its development, use, and proliferation.

The other idea that it needs to be a utility is straight from the wet dreams of every AI company. Realistically, the average person has little use for AI and it’s much more likely to be a detriment to them than otherwise. I know someone who is an exec in a big company and they get AI through their work. They use it for inane things mostly, but recently they used it to generate a list of reasons that their kids do need to go to school. This is an educated person with a good job who can’t figure out that AI has no idea what their kids need.

I don’t think AI needs to be used by nearly the number of people currently using it, but my bigger concern is letting anyone, be it a private company or a government, have access to something people treat like a magic answer anything machine.

I disagree in part. Many people have replaced searching with AI.

Take a pic of something in chatGPT. “What is this?”

It’s highly useful in everyday life.

The problem is that people my age were skilled before AI so it is literally just making things easier for us which is the point.

Kids on the other hand, it is taking away their opportunity to learn as my generation did and that’s a huge problem.

Then we get back to the underlying problem. Governance and standards.

Should AI be allowed in school? Should companies be forced to continue entry level jobs that could be phased out by AI?

You could ask a million questions.

The problem with human nature is we are great at figuring out if we can do things we don’t stop to think of we should do things.

If you think taking a picture of something and having AI identify it for you is something that 1) people should do on a daily basis and 2) the government should support AI as a utility for, then we have such different concepts of the world we want to live in that I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement here. I cannot imagine how that would be “highly useful in everyday life” for the average person.

The whole “You could ask a million questions” while supporting the idea it should be a utility is so weird to me. Like, yes, we could ask a million questions, and I think we should before suggesting it is a service that every citizen should be somewhat entitled to access from the government in some way (with all the caveats that come with a utility etc etc). It seems like you have fallen into the trap you suggest is inherent to human nature and you haven’t bothered to ask if we should do that.

The problem with your argument is it runs counter to the facts.

AI adoption is here. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that’s not so, or you can acknowledge it and know there is work still to do.

theglobalstatistics.com/artificial-intelligence-a…

hbr.org/…/how-people-are-really-using-ai-in-2026

pewresearch.org/…/artificial-intelligence-in-dail…

What argument do you think I’m making and what facts does it run counter to? So a lot of people use AI. That has no relevance to my point at all. Unless you’re using popularity of a tool as a proxy for if it’s good or not, it’s irrelevant to my position. Nuclear proliferation was here at one point, CFCs in everyday consumer products, smoking. There are plenty of things that were popular that we decided were not good for us as a society and we worked to make things different.

I never said it was unpopular, I said that many people using it have no real need of it and it may be doing more harm than good in many cases. I can say for a fact I know several people who use AI and are worse for doing so. Your own links suggest a majority of the people using it don’t find it actually helpful and that they want more control over their interactions with it. That doesn’t strike me as a population of people who can’t wait to embrace AI or embrace having their governments responsible for ensuring access to it. To be clear, even if they did mostly find it actually helpful, I don’t think it means that we need to be providing it.

Full disclosure, your second link was inaccessible to me so I am going off the data in the other links.

If people have no need for it then they wouldn’t be using it. Full stop. I don’t get your argument.

Clearly the statistics are showing people need it. It is making tasks quicker and/or easier. That’s the point.

You thinking otherwise doesn’t change statistics.

Yes I can do the same shit without it but that means more work and more time. Why would I do that? (I’m saying this as a proxy for the average person)

There are absolutely rabid anti-AI people on Lemmy even who think it’s just autocorrect.

NO! I think its just auto-complete (and I only think that about LLMs)

I mostly agree, but instead of better regulating AI governments and corporations have just been using it as an excuse to lay people off

i trust no business to use ai coding properly, they cut so many corners in crunch already that pure unfiltered slop will for sure end up committed

we already see this with microslop windows 11 updates

it is even worse that many coders think it makes them better at their jobs because given how many issues pop up with factual ai use elsewhere i am sure no one rational expects coding to be exempt from this problem, so the least knowledgeable will be the most impacted with false assurance or worse we have other agents validating agent generated code that never has human eyeballs on it

slop-centipede of shit code

the biggest coding bugs either fail silently or succeed incorrectly and ai usage makes both of these worse

Again based on real world experience I disagree. The problem is the people doing the AI coding and how they were before?

I have a strong coding background. I know what AI is coding for me. I give it strong guardrails. It does for me in minutes something that would take me hours. I will still review and QA what it does.

The problem is people who use it to built a monolith of code and I’ve seen my fair share of that AND documentation driven by AI. It’s unneedingly obtuse and verbose and reeks of people who do not know what they’re doing.

There is a huge difference in telling AI to “build me a website in Django” vs. “build me a function to do xyz when the parameters are abc and the return value needs to be lmn”

my real world experience is both Microsoft win 10 and win 11 having massive impacting bugs since January

reddit.com/…/reports_of_boot_failures_with_the_ja…

in the case of win 11, multiple times

even if you personally use it right that says nothing about these massive corporations

also im not anti ai as a concept but anti ai because tech bros are the fucking anti christ

i know for a fact in the coding sphere i operate in there are people coding via agent -> agent in multi chains

that shit is terrifying given the field i work in

Ok? But that’s you. I don’t work for Microsoft I work for a major financial company and I have not seen the disastrous impacts you are seeing nor are we rolling out end user software.

personally don’t care at all but the morality argument is not about the experience of the developers lol

Don’t forget the negative internalities (it makes it’s users dumber and the codebase less maintainable).

But yes it is useful, and the knee jerk hate comes mostly as a reaction to the marketing lies told by the companies selling it.

Experienced developers benefit from it, my guess is because they’ve already formed their knowledge, habits, opinions, etc.

I don’t think any company has shown productivity gains amongst experienced developers due to AI

Devs are lazy. Any productivity gains are negated by them simply choosing to work less and have more free time. Which is not a bad thing.

That hasn’t been my experience, my experience is that you end up babysitting the LLM so much that you aren’t able to get more done.

I’m not able to spend less time working either as the LLM requires constant supervision.

Those are still external to the thing, not internal.

https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool

The crux of that article is buying into Heidegger‘a definition of a tool, specifically, “thing that lets you do something you wouldn’t otherwise have been able to.” If you disagree with that premise, the article doesn’t hold up.

Tools aren’t about letting you do something you would otherwise not have been able to do, they are simply a force multiplier for capability or efficiency. You still need knowledge and skills to do the thing.

I am not a carpenter. My knowledge and skills are near zero. This multiplied by any number is still damn near zero, and I have no idea about the culture, safety, or history of carpentry. I’m not stupid enough to jump right into using an lathe without a lot of research or someone to guide me, because I’m not a fucking moron.

People with programming knowledge and skills using AI will eventually figure out a workflow that works. Laypeople using AI to vibe code? They’re probably fucking morons. Sure, maybe even most of the time, it will be fine. But eventually, someone is going to be degloved.

That’s something I see in my workplace even without AI, just with coding/scripting/automation.

It helps you do things faster. It doesn’t ensure you’re doing the right thing (unless you have someone skilled build in all the guardrails).

So many of my coworkers are at the “This chainsaw is amazing! I bet it would be great at driving nails!” level of scripting, and AI is only making them more reckless.

I was ready to roll my eyes at the title and move on, but i’m glad I spent the time to read this.

TLDR; i very much disagree with the premise, but the author brings up an interesting bit of philosophy that is helpful to the conversation.

When people say “it’s just a tool”, it is not to assert that the tool is neutral, only that the thing being referenced should be thought of and discussed in a similar fashion as we do when discussing other items in the same category. This is in opposition to the tendency to ascribe moral features or aesthetic to things that aren’t inherent to their ‘essence’, but rather features external to the thing being discussed or features that are commonly shared by items in the set but not exclusive to it.

What comes to mind (possibly because of the great effort it took to read and understand it) is Deleuze and Guattari’s conceptualization of the ‘assemblage’. Here’s an excerpt from "A Thousand Plateaus (that happens to contain my favorite passage in possibly all of philosophy) that I think adds a contrast:

[…] These affects circulate and are transformed within the assemblage: what a horse “can do.” They indeed have an optimal limit at the summit of horse-power, but also a pessimal threshold: a horse falls down in the street! It can’t get back on its feet with that heavy load on its back, and the excessive whipping; a horse is going to die!—this was an ordinary sight in those days (Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Nijinsky lamented it). So just what is the becoming-horse of Little Hans? Hans is also taken up in an assemblage: his mother’s bed, the paternal element, the house, the cafe across the street, the nearby warehouse, the street, the right to go out onto the street, the winning of this right, the pride of winning it, but also the dangers of winning it, the fall, shame … . These are not phantasies or subjective reveries: it is not a question of imitating a horse, “playing” horse, identifying with one, or even experiencing feelings of pity or sympathy. Neither does it have to do with an objective analogy between assemblages. The question is whether Little Hans can endow his own elements with the relations of movement and rest, the affects, that would make it become horse, forms and subjects aside. Is there an as yet unknown assemblage that would be neither Hans’s nor the horse’s, but that of the becoming-horse of Hans? An assemblage, for example, in which the horse would bare its teeth and Hans might show something else, his feet, his legs, his peepee-maker, whatever? And in what way would that ameliorate Hans’s problem, to what extent would it open a way out that had been previously blocked?

The author here is correct to point out that tools are not neutral - and the connection to Heidegger’s conception of the Gestell is very well received. I just wish they hadn’t stopped at their conclusion and actually kept the analysis going. Taking their example of SUV’s engendering ‘asshole driving behavior’ - it isn’t just that the existence of SUV’s bears a causal relationship to asshole drivers because of what that gestell produces, but that the existence of SUV’s reshapes the relations of all the other assemblages in close proximity to it regardless of how it’s used and by who. They even kind of preview this more balanced conclusion in their comparison of javascript and vue, stating that it’s not a matter of one being better than the other, but simply that they have different purposes and enable different types of collaboration.

I think the entirety of the problem of this argument could be captured just in this part of the blog,

After all, all kinds of fascinating weapons systems are being used in defence of freedom and democracy in Ukraine, and this is both good and necessary, but none of this makes the effects on leaders of having access to bombs and artillery, or on individual people of having access to firearms, not ceteris paribus deletrious.

All other things couldn’t possibly remain ‘equal’. The addition of those tools fundamentally changes the relations and constituent parts of all the assemblages around it, including concepts like “freedom” and “democracy”. To take it one step further - if the signs and symbols that refer to those assemblages and relations - that have now necessarily changed by the new addition - do not also change with them, then they simply stop being practically useful to describe them.

Any tool is going to have a non-neutral affect on those who use them - that’s mostly the point of the assertion.

AI is a useful tool, for all its flaws and negative externalities.

“If you ignore the negatives for everyone else and just focus on the positives for me, it’s pretty great”

Mhmm. Right, ok.

Go live under a rock then because that applies to almost anything in life. Selective morality is fine but when it is to be a science denier you are just a fuckwit.

you know what also was a useful tool? chlorofluorocarbon

If the developer reviews and understands the code and what he is doing, AI is just a tool. I trust Linus and GrapheneOS to be able/capable of this. People are just tired of AI being shoved everywhere, steal jobs, etc. I completely understand but, there are cases where it is useful

Nuances?! on MY Fediverse?! tbh im also mostly with Linus and also do not expect his PRs to drop in quality, because of it. He does sometimes say weird things regarding AI though, like that its a great way for upcoming developers to learn and I do not think that is really true, but again: Nuances. I myself keep AI usage minimum and in the constraints of a chat bot, not because its not useful but because I dont wanna get stupid :(

I’m with Linus Torvalds

you mean the guy who started losing his marbles like 5 years ago?

Your take here is so dumb. Many on Lemmy are software engineers (myself included).

We know exactly how “AI” companies have tried to change programming and know how dumb and misguided it is because we understand quality code.

Sure bro. All dumb takes by GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and even Linux.

You understand quality code, unlike Linus Torvalds.

GrapheneOS and Linus have always had a god complex and took the stance their way is the only way. I have never respected them as the arbiters of the correct path others have. (I know LineageOS exists but not much else so can’t speak to them).

I respect them putting in the effort. I respect them trying. I’ve contributed where I can because the overall goal of data privacy and digital freedom is one I agree with. But to hold them on a pedestal as always right is, yes, still a dumb take. I’ve never seen anything that made them the end all be all people seem to hold them up as. Solid voices who’s opinion should hold more than average? Sure. But that’s it.

Yes, Linus is smart and has had good takes and can produce code used by most every computer in one way or another. That doesn’t make him infallible.

Its not about putting linus on a pedestal… its about these anti-AI purists declaring everyone who uses AI a nazi and all code is slop. Big tough guys saying they wont use software with even a single line of generated code.

Go ahead, fork the linux kernel then… these people will never be able to follow through with their purism, unless they go full templeOS mode

I dislike AI overall, but what i’m starting to dislike almost as much are these anti-AI purists who are holier than everyone

I mean this in the worst way possible. Your attitude mirrors the far right and is just as bad a take. That’s their approach to everything.

“Oh, you’re fighting against something you see as a danger to literally the entire world? Well if you’d just stop shoving your opinion in our face we’d be happier.”

fighting against something you see as a danger to literally the entire world

Is that what you’re doing, then?

He doesn’t care for misguided opinions not backed with anything but emotion. The people he is talking about don’t actually look into the issues and fight those, their mind is set that AI is evil and you are too for any usage of it, without actually understanding anything about the situation.

There are situations where using AI uses less power than traditional methods, there are situations where the power is clean, hell there are even models getting made that don’t use stolen data. Some people use it more responsibly (use tiny models where possible) while some toss everything at whatever new Fable or Opus is available.

There are levels of AI usage and their blanket statements with no understanding are annoying because it alienates the people that are responsible with their usage.

I am sorry you get tossed out with the bathwater.

It absolutely is something I struggle with. To me, I know LLMs are just called AI but aren’t, and machine learning is not LLM. I’ve actually developed a neural network based program for a previous company before and know it can be useful in certain cases.

But how do I know the person I’m talking to knows that? How do I know the person is one of the minority who is trying to do it ethically and responsibly? How do I express just how truly damaging the current mainstream “AI” methods are succinctly and strongly without getting bogged down in that discussion and sidetracked from the bigger picture (which is exactly what’s happening here in this comment for example).

AI is Evil -> Irresponsible AI use is Evil AI destroys the environment -> Irresponsible AI use is destroying the environment

All it really takes imo is a small adjustment of words to change your stance from looking like zealotry to actual concern for the issues. I also think these sidetracks are important, to be fair. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had this conversation to deepen our understanding of the issues.

I would be more than willing to agree if the message was “Frontier AI labs are causing massive harm to the environment by facilitating irresponsible use of AI” rather than “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (not saying those are your words, just getting my point across lol)

I have tried that shift from “AI is Evil” -> “Irresponsible AI use is Evil” and what I found is everyone then goes “well I’m one of the responsible ones” and we end up right back where we started with them pumping every thought into a prompt and churning out whatever with no regard. Humans are very skilled at believing they aren’t the problem and are the hero of their own story.

If however, the lazy approach is taken of “AI is evil, fuck you for using it” (those are my words but with the asterisk of if you truly are part of the 0.01% using it responsibly then ignore me) then people understand that, yes, I mean you guy running claude code to “write” your next big app.

It’s the same problem of why marginalized people get overlooked or alienated in general. They’re in the margins because they aren’t the norm. Not saying it’s good, just this is more of that and I’ve never seen a good solution.

Ok, so i’m far-right (just call me a nazi) because i dont have a 100% blind hatred of AI?

this is exactly what i’m talking about… this kind of holier than thou attitude makes enemies out of potential allies

I’m sure if we had a reasonable discussion about AI we’d find 90% of our opinions align… i’m generally very against AI as it is now…

But instead you’ve already labelled me as just another pro-AI nazi because i dont pass your purity test

I explicitly did not call you a Nazi or far right. I do see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way and isn’t my intent so my bad on that one.

I said that that’s a far right attitude to take. Shutting out the opinion of people against it because you view them as obnoxious. Nothing good will happen if we all did that in my opinion.

I never shut out opposing opinions… i merely said that i’m irritated by the anti-AI purists…

1. "All AI is facist and you are a facist/far-right/nazi if you use even a little bit of it " (not what you said, but a very common statement on lemmy)

2. “AI is a potentially useful technology that has a lot of negatove externalities. Let’s work together to reduce the negatives and take the power back from big tech.”

Which one of those stances sounds more like “Shutting out the opinion of people”?

I’m gonna point you at the comment chain I’ve got adjacent to this with Zeoic if you missed it. I think it’s ultimately dancing around the same stuff and expresses my thoughts more cleanly on this topic.

Your attitude mirrors the far right and is just as bad a take. That’s their approach to everything.

You did compare them to the far right though.

Unfortunately, having a god complex is not sufficient to make one a good coder.

You’re literally the one who was using him as your example…

What they mean is that one does not dismiss the other. They are separate characteristics.

You can have a good coder with a god complex, or a good coder without one.

You’re an idiot if you think popular and field leaders can’t be wrong.

Appeals to authority and hero worship are terrible arguments for anything

… telling it like it is.

I know only one type of person that uses that phrase unironically.

Oh yeah. Op is definitely one of those types.

It hasn’t changed at all, some of us just use LLMs to help us code.

What has changed is the influx of morons thinking they are devs cos they can vibe code an app full of bugs and security risks.

I am not a coder in any fashion but this is the make or break frontier for development, particularly FOSS and small scale projects.

AI is evil.

It is an ecological nightmare, socially and economically distructive, prompted on the theft of the knowledge and work of every creative endeavour any person as ever made and pointed at rendering pointless any future aspiration of individual creation someone may have.

The association has been made and it is not going away.

grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS Here you go, argue with GrapheneOS - it’s an open platform, go ahead and make a masto account and share your thoughts with them. Tell them what you think! The rep who handles their masto account is very well spoken and presents rebuttals of value so I advise you bring your A game.

You’re right, but don’t encourage people to brigade GrapheneOS. That’s a donation-funded project.

My bad, I didn’t think of that. My only thought was “$20 says this chucklehead won’t do squat” because we know.

I’m not brigading anyone. They have their reasons, I have my view regarding AI, that is it. I did not attack the GrapheneOS team in any way nor do I intend to.

I’m not going to approach them in any fashion. I have already made my decision about their work/product and the GrapheneOS is not of my interest.

The project must have their reasons but I still insist on what I’ve stated regarding AI in general.

The rep who handles their masto account is very well spoken and presents rebuttals of value so I advise you bring your A game.

Yeaaaah like deleting their earlier posts to make themselves look better and claiming the “haters” are coming from K*wi Farms.

mas.to/@zzt/117246306723269935

Truly good rebuttals right here!

“Ai” isn’t inherently evil. It’s just a tool. An incredibly interesting and marvelous tool, in theory.

What we make of it and how we use it matters. Noone needs stupid chatbots. People should only be allowed to use them after graduating an exam of what they actually are and how they work. In the current state they’re 90% bullshit and harmful.

But LLMs surely have great and reasonable applications. People often fear what they don’t really understand. And LLMs really are a topic that often even “techies” don’t get, so why should a layman.

Yes, they are environmental Desasters. But try to substract all the trillions of silly nonsensical queries millions of people hammer into chatbots, that once were simple search-engine - queries. And it’s not THAT bad anymore.

"AI is just a tool" - #1 thing said by tools.

Machine guns are tools. As are jets and bombs and missiles.

Exactly. Seems you understood the point. Also same as cars, planes, spoons and machetes.

“AI is just a tool” - #1 thing said by tools.

#1 thing said by arrogant turds with no clue.

My point proven :D

If that fills your clueless heart with joy, be my guest 🤷🏻

I’m just going to quote myself, as I’m satisfied enough with the answer I wrote to another reply.

As it exists, as it was created, “AI” is evil. It consumes resources we can’t afford to waste and is currently supercharging our pollution indexes and creating what may be a catastrophic collapse of already very fragile and unbalanced social and economic realities. And because we are already into the sunken cost falacy fase, it will never be rewritten or rebuilt. Hopefully, it will collapse in such horrifying way it will create a cautionary tale, but we are not so lucky, so what we are left with is picking up the bits after it. This kind of system had to be developed inside laboratories, colleges, universities, research centers, to aid into very niche and specific fields of research, not made to be a mass consumption comodity as it is. But it was, unfortunately, not done that way.

You are confusing capitalism and ai. AI is just a tool. Capitalist will use any tool it can to hurt labor. This is currently born out by history recent and ancient. The luddites attacked the looms not because they were evil. But because the bourgeoisie were using them to exclude and attack labor.

That is a false equivalence.

The looms, the automated treshers, the tractor, whatever machine designed to a fullfil a task that displaced human labour wasn’t designed with the objective to render humans useless. There were periods of transition when people hurt, needlessly, if I may say so, but new occupations emerged.

This is not the same.

For the first time, we are faced with a technology that feeds off human achievement to be built and next states it can dispense and completely replace what enabled it to be put together to start. While consuming resources we can not afford to waste and returning nothing of value.

No, it’s a literal analog. There will still be people operating AI. Even using your own terminology is literally the same.

And I don’t even know where you’re going with the last part. I suggest you familiarize yourself with what AI is actually capable of. The biggest danger of AI is not that it hallucinates more than someone tweaking on meth. But that people dumb and tweaking on meth with too much power will take what it says as gospel. Your liable to make the people in the marketing Departments of these AI companies cum with how badly misrepresenting what these AI are capable of. The same AI that some companies fire their workforces for and are now humiliatedly hiring them back. Because the AI wasn’t capable of what it was sold as.

It is not an analog, in any measurement.

We are talking about a technology that been prompted, since its inception, as the leap that would render human work unnecessary - which is false under many measurements.

When that failed, it was then repackaged as the technology that would enable any person to do anything: write a book, a song, create the new Mona Lisa, write any program they needed or wanted, etc. And again, it failed.

Any major development was always geared towards solving a concrete, tangible, problem. For AI, every proponent for it is trying to find problems to fix with it.

I don’t care about the promises of AI. I care about the cost of it, now and future. It’s not a hand full of niche applications that are going to impress me. Put it towards research, make it truly useful, in the hands of people capable of forcing it to produce results and audit and validate them. It is not a toy, it is not something that can replace human beings in any measurement, it is not something people should be relegating their autonomy and individuality to, which is happening as we are having this conversation.

No need to reply to this. I’m out. I don’t care for any arguments in defence of AI and it’s potential. I’ve made my choice. Keep to yours.

Have a great one. See you around.

It’s not a defense of AI. It’s a pushback on your hysterical flailing against all forms of it. And your inability to engage rationally on the subject. Case in point you hand wavingly deny my point while providing a list of evidence to support it.

If you are going to protest the current deployment of AI, the AI isn’t the problem. The actual issue is the grifting petit bourgeoisie looking to gate keep it as they continue to grift. Destroying everyone and everything in their path. You’ve shown that you know the generative AI isn’t what it’s sold as. But oddly you attack those that technically agree with you, simply because they won’t histrionically flip flop between that and all AI bad!!!1!!ONE!

people are not entitled to employment, and machines are a great way to reduse the labour requirements.

You have the right to express your opinion as you may please but you’re not entitled to have me respect it nor respect you for it, but I digress.

This isn’t Reddit, sadly, because otherwise I’d give you gold for that comment.

By that logic, when all human labour - and I do mean all of it, with no exception - is no longer necessary, thus no income can be earned by any part, how will people survive? I expect them to be, at least, entitled to move out of the way and silently and peacefully disappear.

“I’m just going to quote myself”

Yeah go on buddy, doesn’t make you right though.

AI is an item (as “tool” seems to trigger you people), saying it is “evil” is just stupid and makes you sound like an evangelist lol.

Is it bad? That is something people can actually discuss, but you’re not here for that it seems.

The AI is a consummer of resources we can not easily dispense that returns nothing of objective and equivalent value.

Fresh words, no quotes.

More palatable now?

Oh no we didn’t know that!! /s

Dude, we know the downsides of generative AI and the training of llms.

Is that so hard to understand?

It is. It really is. At any point on any other endeavour, someone said it was enough and the costs did not justify the results. Not with this. So, it really is hard to understand.

Just because it was a nicely worded statement, doesn’t make it universal.

I use a local LLM for our smart home. It wastes a Lil bit of energy, which is still faaaar below my 1500W while gaming. Is gaming evil now? It helps dramatically in ways that were never possible before like “turn on all lights at 40% in the color purple and also turn on music. My fav playlist” followed by a “no, use a warm color and close all windows”.

Not every LLM is a fucking chatbot that eats the planet to “create” a shitty cat-meme for Granny’s Facebook.

Don’t assume everyone uses silly chatbots. That is ONE application of LLMs, and it is indeed stupid and kills out environment for basically no benefit.

Congratulations. Enjoy it.

The problem you’re encountering is that every human defines evil differently. Those disagreeing with you seem to define evil to include “detrimental to civilized society”, which does at least come from an objective premise, even if you don’t agree with the assessment.

Through that lens, the good it does for people simply cannot outweigh the bad, because they believe the bad to include the end of society. That is what you’re arguing against, and why people with that view are so energized and are unmoved by the counter-arguments. If you want to change their minds, you would first have to convince them their premise is false, not just their conclusion.

Well, tbh, if someone has an opinion that isn’t swayable by facts, why should I take that person seriously? It’s like talking with religious nutjobs. They already have all “answers”.

The facts are clear, relatively simple, and accessible by everyone. And “evil” is generally considered bad. But LLMs are not just “that precise one thing” that could be declared evil. It’s a concept. The application of it changes the good/evil attribution. Chatbot? Obviously bad. Helping to determine cancer in a Patient? Good. Etc.

If people don’t WANT to argue because they already joined a “AI is the devil”-cult, so be it. Not my job to convince anyone of anything 😊

Their opinions may be swayable by facts, but not just any facts. You would need to present facts that confirm that their specific objections are unfounded or overblown.

Facts like “its here to stay” and “it allows you to write more code in less time”, etc, do not address their objections. Stating to them the ways in which it is good does nothing to counter their conception of the ways in which it is bad.

And that’s the nonsense about it. We’re not talking about cars or such, but a general concept. And most likely take one or two specific applications of it and use it as a definition of the thing itself. And even with cars you couldn’t condemned them because tanks exists, and ignore ambulances or such.

Also, it’s usually the exact same group that also mostly uses products of what they hate so much. Microsoft, google, Facebook or any us-american bigtec. If LLMs would be as bad as they say it is, stop funding it. Simple. Really really simple. I don’t use any of those, so it’s possible to actually protest besides big word and vote by wallet.

AI in concept is not evil and could be a good thing .

Unfortunately, its implementation has been at the hands of rapacious, avaricious, and narcissistic über-capitalists, which has inextricably linked AI with the evils you enumerated.

In a different timeline, AI was developed slowly, using heavily-vetted and legally obtained data, and rolled out in an intelligent and safe way.

We are better off leaving the appeal to alternate time lines for another conversation, preferably around science fiction or comics.

As it exists, as it was created, “AI” is evil. It consumes resources we can’t afford to waste and is currently supercharging our pollution indexes and creating what may be a catastrophic collapse of already very fragile and unbalanced social and economic realities.

And because we are already into the sunken cost falacy fase, it will never be rewritten or rebuilt. Hopefully, it will collapse in such horrifying way it will create a cautionary tale, but we are not so lucky, so what we are left with is picking up the bits after it.

This kind of system had to be developed inside laboratories, colleges, universities, research centers, to aid into very niche and specific fields of research, not made to be a mass consumption comodity as it is. But it was, as you very well put it, not done that way.

AI is not evil. It doesn’t have a consciousness. It doesn’t make decisions.

What is evil, are billionaire capitalists having full control over the technology.

What is evil, is the concept of closed-source.

What is evil, is stealing all creative works without attribution or compensation.

What is evil, is seizing essentially all the silicon to build these datacenters, then soak up all the electricity out of the grid and all the water out of the ground.

The problem isn’t the AI, itself. It’s the means that’s the problem…not the ends.

To summarize: something that is being created through highly destructive amd predatory means, by completely deranged people, is not evil.

I can’t disagree more. And to quote myself, again, today:

As it exists, as it was created, “AI” is evil. It consumes resources we can’t afford to waste and is currently supercharging our pollution indexes and creating what may be a catastrophic collapse of already very fragile and unbalanced social and economic realities. And because we are already into the sunken cost falacy fase, it will never be rewritten or rebuilt. Hopefully, it will collapse in such horrifying way it will create a cautionary tale, but we are not so lucky, so what we are left with is picking up the bits after it. This kind of system had to be developed inside laboratories, colleges, universities, research centers, to aid into very niche and specific fields of research, not made to be a mass consumption comodity as it is. But it was, unfortunately, not done that way.

“Evil” is a subjective term, so it is difficult to make headway in discourse using terms like that. I feel that using objective statements are more effective. Someone that thinks AI is “evil” would do better to say something like “I believe this technology to be a net harm to human society.” While difficult to verify and quantify, that statement at least still is verifiable and quantifiable, unlike “AI is evil”.

AI is a tool, like a hammer, and should be used as such. And like a tool should require training. The problem is people aren’t using it as a tool and rather look at the hammer and say “go build me a house”. That’s where the issue is. Does a hammer know how to build a house on its own? no. does AI excel at end to end builds? no. but people are using it for said end to end builds.

Devs, vibe coders, god knows who else still to this day fail to understand that AI doesn’t understand how to build things correctly. All the agents care about is getting to a solution as quickly as possible to retain a userbase. that’s it. will what ever it builds scale? no. will it be full of exploits? very likely. will it be able to refactor whatever it wrote? no because it will believe YOU wrote it. so upgrades/improvements to whatever are virtually impossible.

THEN you combine all that with the fact that EVERY AI’s training data, currently, is incredibly out of date. Tech moves too fast for it. So you have people building shit with libraries and what have you that are already out of date and they don’t know that.

Nuclear weapons are a tool, like any other

I think with OP’s analogy, a nuclear weapon is no longer a tool, because the actual tool (nuclear technology) was crafted into something (weapon) that does a specific thing (destroy). But I guess OP should’ve used LLM and machine learning instead of AI.

Tools intended for war are still tools.

Nuclear fission has been used in nuclear reactors for good, and was exceedingly efficient at that time, and has been a significant factor in the recent human history. Just as it’s been with the “evil” use in nuclear weapons.

I’m not aware of any breakthrough that has not been used for both good and evil.

That’s a great example actually, you just have to differentiate between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear power plant. You can split atoms to build a bomb or heat water, the concept of splitting an atom itself isn’t evil.

Exactly

Good justification to why GOS is right to use AI to detect vulnerabilities. The only true way to protect yourself from an enemy that has nuke bombs is to have some yourself.

Ukraine gave up its stockpile in exchange of promises from both Russia and NATO that no harm would come to them, and would there be harm from one side, the other side would come and help them. They were betrayed by both sides.

AI is very efficient at finding vulnerabilities. Among a see of false positive, they find real ones. It’s much more efficient and faster than human auditing code. So either it’s GOS using it, finding them and patching them, or it’s… someone else.

A tool built through nefarious means and consuming resources it should never had chanelled into it.

Then, taking from your words, if the information these machines are working is by default outdated, why insist in feeding it with more and more and expect different outcomes?

Makes no sense to begin with.

So by your logic, a child produced through “nefarious means” is also inherently evil.

What?

Only the mentally ill regard humans as tools, though, so that analogy is only apt for them.

It’s a tool like a gun, specifically purpose built to usher in a technofeudalist surveillance state. Not useful for anything else as is.

Guns are incredibly useful, just like LLMs and diffusion.

For literally one thing only. That was the point of my comment. Unfortunately AI can’t give you reading comprehension.

guns can be used for murder/self defense and hunting, but I suppose thst second one is less common outside Alaska

I am not a coder in any fashion

You should use ai to learn 😁

I recommend chat.mistral.ai/chat as they use renewable power to train their models and are european 👍

Pass. Haven’t learn before, not interested in do it now. And if by some reason I wished to do it, I’d grab a few books on it.

You do know those books will also be AI generated, right?

How do you know? Honestly, how can you claim a given author will relay to a meat grinder the effort of compilling a work they will sign and be responsible for?

One added curiosity from me: at what point has the colective surrender of independent thought and action been signed and by whom?

And a final question but feel free to skip this: do you rely completely on LLMs to complete your daily life tasks or are you still able of doing things by yourself?

this is such an extremist position, i don’t know how anyone can take it seriously

Thank you.

Never been on the Fuck AI communities? They all think like that.

And like everything in life, things are a lot more nuanced.

What? So I use my Intel B70 to help code a useful application. Maybe use a half kilowatt to do so. Play a game for an hour you’d use the same.

The current crop of AI companies are doing what you hate, not AI.

Cool well I’ll keep using Lineage until they become massive piles of steaming crap as well.

Fuck AI and all you silicon ball lickers.

A large number of people are using it as an opportunity to promote using operating systems which are the direct opposite of hardened and are much more heavily using AI models including for a lot of code generation.

LineageOS is certainly using it. CalyxOS, /e/ and iodéOS are based on it. CalyxOS is developed by LineageOS core developers.

grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/117243278117231129

Since LLMs are essentially built from code, I have an easier time believing that coders can get a benefit, especially at the Individual level, within the frame of having a coding background and being able to audit, directly, the code that the machine spits out. But basically everything else happening with, and surrounding, these fucking things is atrocious.

The objections of many are not focused on whether or not it is useful, they are about whether or not it is ethical to use.

Many object to the fact that it was trained on the works of others with no renumeration or accreditation. Others have objections to its resource efficiency compared with traditional methods. Still others have concerns about the long-term health of codebases written with it. I’m sure quite a few have all three objections.

These are all concerns that will need to be overcome before this technology will stop being controversial and many refuse to touch it or anything it has touched.

I feel ya dude

Fan-fucking-tastic. Everything I love is ruined by slop users.

Oh, so now they’re also infighting like hell. Cool.

It’s not infighting (oh well, if you want to see that, check any other post from GOS when they talk about privacy and security of other Android distros…). They quite legitimately ask why GOS using AI to detect vulnerabilites has triggered such a shit-storm while every other distro accept LLM generated code and no one seems to care.

just curious, are you planning to stop using technology altogether, once there’s nowhere else to migrate to?

I mean, I assume you have thrown away your PC already, since all 3 major OSes use AI in their development

No they don’t.

Linux, Windows, and MacOS devs definitely do use LLMs to help with coding.

In your defense NetBSD does not, but I would not consider NetBSD to be one of the big 3.

Windows clearly does. Linux kernel does. MacOS has built-in AI features and XCode has support for AI agents, so one would assume they also use it in development. Do you have some other 3 major OSes I don’t know about? Are you on FreeBSD? Cause uhhh freebsdfoundation.org/…/freebsd-ai-assisted-vulne…

Well, I hardly use my PC and was just forced to get one for a job to do email bullshit, so in my day to day, yes. And Ive been exploring getting a basic ass flipphone and a atlas instead of relying on googles shit GPS system, I already use OSM instead but still.

I would sooner migrate to templeOS than use slopOS in gunna be real. There is always an archived iso

good luck

You’ll use it because we will leave you no other option

You slop garglers really are wonderful people.

Also, didn’t Debian declare that AI generated code is not compliant with their policies?

Also also: organic foods, human-powered bicycles, acoustic music, manual transmissions, etc

we will leave you no choice

who’s “we”? I don’t happen to write any OSes myself, but yeah, tribalism is a powerful thing.

it doesn’t matter what debian declared, the kernel is what matters. but also no, they didn’t theverge.com/…/linux-debian-generative-ai-policy

An AI supporter would link The Verge instead of the source itself. 😒

You’re right, they allowed AI generated code.

www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texte

An AI supporter would link The Verge instead of the source itself. 😒

I was posting from mobile, so I linked the page that’s readable on mobile, unlike the source ;)

But yeah, no, sure, keep seething

I read the source on mobile.

Maybe you’re too used to having ChatGPT summarize things

@BrickEater unfortunately LineageOS does allow AI contributions: https://github.com/LineageOS/charter/blob/main/ai-coding-assistants.md

if you are using a computer or phone, you are running AI-generated code. it is rather dire. the best you can do is limit your use of this fashtech in other areas.

@General_Effort

FUCK. I can’t have fucking shit in this goddamn world.

You can, but it will always be touched by AI.

And if you can’t handle that, your best bet is to go live in the woods.

Why are you okay with that? I feel psychotic, like it disgusts me that this is just OK with people.

Oof. Options for good software grows smaller and smaller each day.

hey feel free to fork it, call it amish os!

I'd fork a lot of software if I had the time and skills, an OS is a bit too much for me. I'll happily donate to good projects that come around though, I'm just not feeding money to ones that are feeding that back to billionaires to build datacenters for fucking AI.

Remind me to stay away from that Nazi bar.

Defenders of genAI might as well hoist their vintage early 1940s German flags while they’re ahead! Though I suppose an Italian or Japanese flag from the same time period would also work as well.

What has AI got to do with Nazism?

For all their faults (and there are many) the GOS dev(s) are one of the good guys.

elon musk owns a company that has a few models, but if someone wants to try using the already flaky argument of “nazi bar” with something as detached as “one of them likes/funds it so everyone that uses it is a nazi” it tells you how little they think “nazi” means

Well, I conflate Nazism witg fascism and same goes with genAI. It’s already a link in mg head, ao I’m trying to stay as far away from things using genAI coding as well. Keeps me from having to remove the label of “person” from myself.

What about Mistral AI? Stable Diffusion? They Nazis too?

And ‘genAI’ - not sure what thats suposed to mean but AI use is growing fastest with the boomers and all ages are using it.

Spouting nonsense about things you clearly know little about makes you sound as backward as the MAGA morons.

1. By genAI I mean generative AI, like mistral and stable diffusion.
2. So yeah, I would include them the same way I would include things like craiyon or perplexity.
3. As a creative, the fact that almost every genAI model in existance relies on training on copyrighted works¹ is more than enough for me to hate it. There’s a reason why even the RIAA is in a lawsuit against suno, that seemingly hasn’t been settled yet. Despite them being the devil, I would still support them before supporting genAI.
4. I do not care what anyone else thinks about it. I have made it a life goal of mine to see to it that a future where genAI ( and the creatures who willingly use it ) are minimized as much as possible in society at just about any cost.
5. Do I sound deranged for all this? Yes. Do I care? No.

Edit:

I am also not hearing any of the genAI companies calling out things like how grok was allowed the feature set of undressing literally anyone without consent. Most I heard was backlash from everyone else. Similar thing to that one “person” on r•ddit trying to recruit people to try and strip away the effectiveness of tools such as Glaze and Nightshade off images illegally scrapped ( or at least should have been more than illegal ) from a site made for real artists ( those who do not use genAI for their work at any point ). Haven’t seen any backlash from any of those creatures or any of the companies responsible for creating those creatures.

Consent in the realm of genAI is as real as in the realm of rapists and I will defend that view until I die.

You went mask-off, revealing a dehumanization-wielding RIAA-bootlicker.

Scratch an “AI is fascism” person, and a real fascist bleeds.

I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy, but I hate genAI slightly more. Would rather temporarily support the devil I know than the new devil on the block if it means furthering my agenda. Simple as. I tend to be more progressive on basically any other issues, especially since the past few years where I have grown as a person, but genAI has brought out some of the worst in me.

You’re nothing but a reactionary coward. Bending to the will of the RIAA, dehumanizing people, it’s what cowards do.

Let me guess, BlueMAGA?

I don’t like GOS devs, they are not focused on usablity, but on security (which is completely valid, but it’s a shame that GOS is the most usable mobile OS), but holy based.

If you are disputing AI utility in coding: Recent Linux kernel versions fixed up to 3 times more CVEs in comparision to releases before AI. Also, much less of those CVEs are found in the newer versions, which means new kernel releases contain better code.

I think the gist here is making a distinction between AI coding and AI auditing.

To the best of my knowledge, AI coding is still significantly behind human coders in code quality and security. AI auditing, on the other hand, allows a lot of previously missed bugs to come to light, and actively helps in making code better.

I dont think those arguing in good faith dispute its utility, they dispute the cost-benefit assessment of those using it.

If someone, for example, made a tool that produces something of objective value every time you feed it an orphan, it has undeniable utility but many would refuse to use it on moral and ethical grounds.

That’s obviously a hyperbolic example, but the logic behind it is sound and what the detractors are using to make their assessment. LLMs do something useful, but are grievously inefficient on every resource except time, when compared with traditional methods of doing the same thing. That trade-off is unacceptable to many, especially with the backdrop of the planet’s ecosystem rapidly dying.

I haven’t dug into the code, but blanket hate for AI in code is extremely frustrating. There’s a difference between vibe coding and the hundred other ways to “use AI” on a project.

Look at the comments here. Do you think the haters here care?

Noooo All AI is Baaad!!1!

/s

It’s tiresome.

It’s funny because anyone seeing this as black and white clearly hasn’t ever opened an IDE.

I’ve been a programmer for two thirds of my life up to this point. I don’t see how the machine that generates code that must be assumed to be broken, and statements about said code that must be assumed to be wrong, until both have been manually verified, because the “hallucination” issue is inherent to the design of LLMs and cannot be solved, is supposed to make my life easier. Especially since a well known problem in computer science is that writing code is more fun than reading it.

If you’re using AI for code generation, I hope you like reading code.

If you’re using AI to learn your way around an existing codebase, I hope you’re prepared to fact check everything it tells you.

If you’re using AI for code review before merging a PR, fucking yikes. What made you think the sycophant machine that once told users a soggy cereal bar was a great business opportunity and cannot even transcribe McDonald’s orders correctly was suitable for that purpose?

If you’re telling yourself it’s okay because there’s a human in the loop, please read some studies about attention fatigue and consider that increasing the number of critical decisions a person must make per day, while giving them a suggested answer that’s right 90% of the time and catastrophically wrong the remaining 10%, and the only way to tell the difference is to read in depth, might not have the desired effect. Especially if the human in question is then put under time pressure.

And all that is before I go on a five paragraph rant about the ethical transgressions of every major AI company.

It’s pretty black and white for me.

This in spades.

To add; now there’s an issue in the generated code that’s been pushed. What to do? Read the code? Have new code generated? Abandon the project?

Abandon the project

The fact that it isn’t perfect is the grey. And sure, it has a lot of problems but not only is it still useful anyways, but those problems are being ironed out. They probably won’t disappear completely but the tech is already miles further than what we had 2 years ago.

To make you understand what I mean by black and white, you have a user that put “AI is evil” in big bold letters in the comments. The hate is almost cult like for part of the population, and imo, it’s mostly because the media tells them to be mad.

Most of it depends on the task in any case. I don’t work with massive code bases and it doesn’t take long reading through a few scripts, running it and checking the output. The people I know that do work with huge code bases are using it as well, but I can’t really talk for them either. They don’t hate it tho.

I agree, it’s just not reasonable to assert that a technology powered entirely by IP theft and climate change acceleration must be inherently evil.

Sorry, I don’t bootlick the copyright machine. Anyone with half a brain can see it’s transformative. I don’t get why collage is fine but AI isn’t, it’s just copyright mega corps and data brokers that smell blood in the water. All the data isn’t even owned by the artist, you are fighting for universal records, not your local guitarist.

For the climate aspect, it’s mostly grid issues and corruption. It’s laughable to blame AI when we have president pedo prostrating himself in front of oil companies and destroying renewable projects. We need regulations and all that on where they can be placed and how they get powered, but in the end, it’s just software. I could use AI 8 hours a day for my whole life and I still wouldn’t be close to the damage one ticket to Europe does. It’s a scape goat being served by a corrupt pro oil lobby.

Don’t get me wrong, I know what datacenters entail with the amount of people they serve, but if you look at it at an individual level, it’s a drop in the bucket, or it would be if they weren’t using plane turbines. We need regulations to curb the stupidity, but it’s doesn’t make it all inherently bad.

Lol, “I know this is a legitimate issue, but if I creatively reframe it enough I can pretend it’s not”.

I don’t think the copyright thing is an issue.

Climate wise, it’s only an issue because of a corrupt administration, it’s not a death blow to it. It’s at the heart of it overblown by a reasonable measure imo.

I love how I say “IP” and you assert “copyright”.

Not the person you are replying to, but if there is no copyright there is no IP “theft”.

The person who put “AI is evil” in big block letters is objectively correct. See homes getting claimed under eminent domain to build power lines for datacenters, electricity prices for consumers rising as service quality gets worse, and water usage to the tune of millions of gallons per datacenter per day. See companies buying rare books in bulk, cutting them apart so they can be scanned faster, and not publishing the scans, literally destroying culture so they can have one more scrap of training data guaranteed to be free of slop that their competitors don’t have. See companies operating web scrapers that deliberately evade every block that website owners try to use to stop them from reading their sites, and then scraping so many different pages so frequently that it’s indistinguishable from a DDoS attack, hosting bills skyrocket, servers crash, indie webmasters pay the price for corporate greed. See xAI operating natural gas turbines on the property of their datacenter for extra electricity in flagrant violation of the Clean Air Act, spewing toxic smoke into the air and generating powerful, inaudible infrasound vibrations that have been linked to everything from nausea to irritability to hearing loss to seizures. See Anthropic treating Minority Report as an instruction manual. See how ChatGPT use affects test scores. See AI psychosis. See chatbot-induced suicides. See deskilling. See how little AI companies care.

These are all largely either “the government is evil” or “corpos are evil”. FOSS models, while currently worse, prove that AI can be done… well, at least more ethically. I’m not gonna sit here and claim that no FOSS model has contributed to these issues.

Yeah. Even if you run the model entirely on your own 100% solar-powered hardware, there’s still the problem of training data, and there’s still the problem of the myriad adverse effects on the user.

The fact that it isn’t perfect is the grey.

And the fact how it is used in practice, actually, in reality, is the very dark grey that some people call “black” for better clarity. The fact that you can use a large butchers knife for practical things does not mean that entering a primary school with one is the right thing. What are the actual intentions for grabbing that tool?

I don’t see how the machine that generates code that must be assumed to be broken, and statements about said code that must be assumed to be wrong, until both have been manually verified, because the “hallucination” issue is inherent to the design of LLMs and cannot be solved, is supposed to make my life easier. Especially since a well known problem in computer science is that writing code is more fun than reading it.

quoted for emphasis. you have more patience than I do in telling sycophants why their take is idiotic.

Ssshh…Most of those having a knee-jerk “AI BAD! YOU BAD!” reaction don’t have any clue WTF an IDE is, how code completion works, nor the fact that by most metrics 95%+ of code now has “AI” in the chain…and has had that for YEARS.

github.blog/…/survey-ai-wave-grows/

survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ai

OMGWTFBBQ!

Here’s a crazy idea…how about instead of “AI BAD! ME HATE AI” how about some nuance? Assume ALL software in 2026 has had AI assistance, and review it on its merits.

As for the devs at GrapheneOS directly…why were you (the general you) trusting them before? Humans can be plenty dicey in ways that affect code all on their own.

reddit.com/…/why_i_deleted_grapheneos_louis_rossm…

factually.co/…/louis-grossman-grapheneos-drama-c1…

Supposedly wonderful “human artisanal code” has plenty of fuckery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XZ_Utils_backdoor

thehackernews.com/…/urgent-secret-backdoor-found-…

simonwillison.net/…/supply-chain-attack-on-axios/

hivepro.com/…/axios-npm-supply-chain-attack-what-…

Supposedly wonderful “human artisanal code” has plenty of fuckery.

These are supply chain attacks and in the case of xz utils, the attacker had gone to extreme lenghts to hide the attack from a well-meaning, good-hearthed but overworked and burnt out solo maintainer.

To compare this to bugs that people unwittingly introduce in normal human-written code is not sincere.

Deleted

Okay, but they still happen with orders of magnitude less frequency than bugs in AI code. Consider that the time between when rsync first adopted LLM-generated code and users en masse reporting rsync internal protocol errors during a backup was on the order of months.

I don’t recall that one…but in fairness…AI generates a metric shit ton more code than humans. We’d have to normalize the results. Interestingly, looking it up now, someone DID normalize for that very case. Bug rate per commit for the AI-assisted versions landed within normal historical range. A pre-AI release had more regressions. The 3.4.3 regressions were primarily from the CVE security patches, not the AI work. Zero CVEs from the Claude-assisted commits.

EDIT: Correct URL alexispurslane.github.io/rsync-analysis/

The author of that article admits that the sample size is not large enough to draw meaningful conclusions.

But besides that, I believe LLM code generators can be a useful tool, provided you are willing to go over their output with a fine-tooth comb and assume it is broken until you have proven otherwise, because the hallucination problem is inherent to the technology and they’re never going to completely solve it, and are willing to overlook the myriad ethical issues with all major LLMs in existence today.

Deleted

I’d really like to see a source for the first guy’s numbers, especially how he accounts for things like training and water usage at the power plant, and as for the second guy, Anthropic is not preserving shit. The Internet Archive preserves books. Anthropic scans them and doesn’t publish the scans so that they can train an LLM that might or might not be able to regurgitate some fragments of that text, and publish that. That’s preservation in the same way that painting a picture of you is keeping you alive forever.

Also, neither of those address the effects on creatives’ livelihoods or the mental health of LLM users. Chatbot psychosis is real. People who routinely use LLMs to do things provably become worse at doing them without them. Students use LLMs to make an end run around having to learn everything they need to know to be effective members of a society, like how to articulate their points, how not to fall for rhetorical traps, what history was really like, and between that and the disastrous effects of No Child Left Behind, teachers are quitting in droves and there’s a literacy crisis.

Deleted

I froze my rsync package the day that was announced. fuck the dev :(

Usually, if it’s noticeable that AI was used on code, the code is flawed or, at least, has copyright concerns.

Agreed.

I strongly remember a CompSci professor ~2005 being disgusted with auto-generated Java GUI. And yes it was clunky and more memory intensive than it could have been, but also, I really don’t care about how GridView is defined most of the time.

Bad code is bad code, touched by AI or not. For working code, a volunteer group spending resources to determine if it might have been touched by AI is at the very least an incredibly frustrating standard to try to meet. And very likely impossible to verify in any meaningful way.

Shh, you’re using logic on social media.

If the haters only realized that literally every software company has been using it since at least last fall, we’d have a helluva lot more Amish.

There’s a difference between vibe coding and the hundred other ways to “use AI” on a project.

I am not talking about the Linux kernel or the Rust project - they have stabdards way above average commercial projects - but generally “using ai” in practice means to use it for code generation. Then, programmers are expected to review the output but are not given extra time for it. This creates an extremely slippery slope leading to mostly unsupervised code creation. Also because reading and understanding buggy third party code means more effort than writing new code.

Then there is the idea to get rid of the bugs by “debugging”, but debugging is frankly not a software engineering strategy, because you can always just recognize a fraction of the bugs that your process created in the first place. Debugging is also more expensive tha writing good code.

Then, what makes the process between product managers and software developers very often a bit friction-loaded is that good developers always want to have clear specifications what they are supposed to build.

LLM code generation largely replaces clear specifications with plausible assumptions. That appears to make the process fast, but the result is often wrong. At times obviously wrong, and at times subtly and catastrophically wrong.

Then, what makes the process between product managers and software developers very often a bit friction-loaded is that good developers always want to have clear specifications what they are supposed to build.

Excellent observation, which aligns with my observation that fans of “coding assistants” can’t wrap their head around algorithms, not to mention a sound software architecture.

Eh, I now have witnessed two cases where I asked a software team lead of a project I was working for for a precise interface or API for a planned function and they looked at me as if I had talked about going on a giraffe ride with a bunch of alien Martian schoolkids.

(And subsystem interfaces is really a subject I was taught in 10th grade by a math professor who himself had been a student of Niklaus Wirth. Maybe if you stand on the shoulders of giants, you should not be pissing on them…)

It was already difficult to find people who know how to phrase good requirements and / or design an architecture before the slop machines got introduced. It will be so much worse for the next couple of decades, with idiots bullshitting their way past HR into a position.

I understand this but, you have to consider the ecological impact of it, the thousands or more people whose work was stealed to train AI, the constant shoving of AI into everything and the problems that have arise from it, the campain AI companies did and do telling people they are going to lose their jobs and constant fearmongering, the constant blatantly lying of “AGI achieved”, the layoffs by senile CEOs, the debt that is causing because stupid people in power gonna be stupid, etc. There are plenty of reasons to hate AI and what it is doing to our world and people lives in general. Sure there are positives but the negatives clearly outweighs the positives.

On top of that, regardless of however you feel about AI, there are so many questions about copyright and ownership here, that as-of-yet remain untried and unanswered by the courts, that it’s essentially impossible to know what the legal ramifications will turn out to be, when accepting “AI code” in your project. I definitely fear that it could turn out to be a sort of trojan horse against especially the GPL, and other copyleft licenses. I conaider it to be risky to use AI code, on that basis alone.

I’d hope that they will stick to non-retroactivity for new laws and rulings on AI, or else the world will have a giant mess on its hands. But I have the feeling that we’re moving towards an eventual, enduring weakening of copyright law, which is totally fine by me. Copyright has done more harm than good to the world (imo).

True, but how will you prove that code was written by AI and not yourself? Any people can generate code, modify some variables to incorporate in their code, and it won’t be any different than copying it from stackoverflow. Unless the code is written in a “very specific AI way” it won’t be possible to distinguish.

Oh, I don’t think any court would rule that using LLM generated code automatically infringes on the copyright of everyone whose text was used to train it, independently of the degree of similarity between the generated output and the original text(s).

But LLMs have a habit of sometime, and not too infrequently either, reproducing parts of their training material verbatim, as their output. As long as it’s only sufficiently small “snippets” of text or code, it’s unlikely to raise significant copyright concerns - but the fact is that it’s not actually that rare that an LLM will replicate larger sections of text from its training material, spanning across many lines. What’s more, LLMs don’t advise you of this, when their output is a replica of a significant part of an already-existing, copyrighted text. But you’ll be infringing on somebody’s copyright, whether you know it or not, irregardless of whether you aquired the text from an LLM or elsewise. That’s a big liability to accept in a large project, that frequently uses LLM-generated code. It would be a minefield.

but blanket hate for AI in code is extremely frustrating

you misspelled “extremely deserved”

@bekkaboo@girlcock.club Linux itself is heavily using AI models.

For security analysis and uncovering bugs.

If they're just using it to find and patch bugs/exploits? Fine by me.

Vibe coding? Get the fuck outta here.

This is the key point.

From my reading that is not the limit in how they are using AI. It seems like they are accepting LLM generated code as inputs.

This pretty much compromises the whole project as far as I am concerned.

If it's thoroughly vetted, it might still be OK, but it's concerning...

Considering Graphene’s entire reputation is staked on extremely precise definitions of security, this is a little concerning.

They’re the “best” (read: most secure) mobile operating system. If the best degrades, I don’t foresee some Graphene alternative stepping up very quickly (see also: cross-platform alternatives to Google-made Chromium and Google-funded Gecko)

is the linux kernel “the best”? because they are using AI tooling. Linus actually threatened to use LLM to maintain sparse if nobody stepped up…

is curl the best? because the creator of curl has also used/accepted LLM code…

if the creators of two of “the best” pieces of software ever made are accepting (NOT embracing or promoting… just accepting) LLM code… maybe it’s time for us to think about the possibility that this MIGHT be a useful tool instead of everyone just yelling “SLOP SLOP SLOP” everywhere…

Someone commented on here the other day that they don’t use anything that uses AI. I had to point out that they were on Lemmy, in a contemporary web browser, connecting to a Linux server running inside of a docker container. I’m still not sure if they understood my point, but I’m glad someone else on here is seeing the ripple effect.

People trusted Linux to be better than Microsoft Windows, and saw the effect of a company with tons of money and first-class AI access exponentially worsening their product.

It has been disappointing to see people like Linus Torvalds turn aggressive against people who do not agree with his ideology, and I find it distasteful for you to use reductive attacks against strawmen as well.

Where is he aggressive? What ideology?

The only ideology linus follows is “dont break userspace”

“Aggressive” is how I understand the language of someone who attacks “natural intelligence” and promises to “very loudly ignore” the people he deems "social warrior"s and “religious” for not agreeing with his opinions, telling anyone who disagrees with him to “look in the mirror”.

Based on my understanding, the “core” team uses AI to detect vulnerabilities.

They also take codes from paid third party devs, and they say they don’t mind how they wrote the code, but it must be clear and each contributor needs to be able to explain it.

They follow the same rules on code conventions including readability. So basically, it’s less that they accept it than they don’t care as long as it matches their quality expectations. If you can’t tell, you can’t ban…

If Vibe coding means people who don’t know how to code creating code… yeah, that’s kind of like giving people who don’t know how to paint an airless gun and 5 gallon bucket and telling 'em to go for it on this building here…

Even people who can code tend get worse over time the more and more they rely on "AI" to avoid having to think too hard.

Studies have shown doctors who rely heavily on "AI" are similarly affected.

People who rely too heavily on anything get brain atrophy with net negative consequence.

Those same tools can be used for learning and exploration and strengthening skills - all a matter of how they’re used.

People using calculators stop being able to calculate things and don’t even get me started in these evil “abacus” things that strip people off their short term memory! People using cheap paper to write whatever they want will not only have worse calligraphy but also write about whatever comes to their mind! Etc. etc. history is full of this.

People still seem to think AI is a fad that will go away. I don’t see this happening (for code) at all. Not ever

People don’t really understand this yet. There are LLMs that can do useful work running locally on 5 year old laptops (ok, only if it’s a Macbook Pro, but still). Qwen on consumer hardware isn’t close to Claude Code using cloud models, but it can do real work and this is the floor, the absolute minimum of AI we will have going forward. No matter what happens to the industry and the bubble, it will not go away. With any other outcome other than a total collapse of the bubble, AI will be more powerful than that.

Like every other recent bubble, the output is not monolithic and uniform. Like all before it, all the stupid/silly/wasteful use cases will dry up, and something will remain, but nothing like what we see at the apex of the hype cycle.

See the dot-com and crypto bubbles for the most directly applicable examples. Both yielded useful technological advancements still in use today, but those are only a fraction of a speck of a ghost of the use cases being touted at their peak.

There is no making ai go away, it’s never going away. Now it’s a tool to divide us.

If it was about real AI – not stochastic parrots – I would be all for it. What happened to those developments that started in the 70s where you have automatic formal proofs that a piece of code does what it is supposed to do? That is intelligent. Producing slop more voluminous and convoluted than humans could produce or understand is not intelligent software architecture just like fixing a hole in a roof by throwing what sticks at it is not intelligent building architecture. Both may do the job for some time. But what are the long-term costs and who is capable to clean up? In my opinion, what’s most desired is tools that are bug free, do what they should without annoying the user, and are radically simplified in their architecture. (For example, I would be happy with a perfectly working product that does what NFS or Samba aspire and fail to do for decades.) Apparently, AI can’t deliver that. To have the billionth app that is a browser wrapper and shows me exactly one website is much more important.

modern AI can be used to generate formal lean proofs:

• scientificamerican.com/…/what-happens-when-ai-sta…
• lemmy.world/post/50205770

What happened to those developments that started in the 70s where you have automatic formal proofs that a piece of code does what it is supposed to do?

The stochastic parrots we have today are pretty good at doing that kind of tedious, extensive, franky mind numbingly boring stuff. They’re also fast enough that you can “afford” to take the time / effort required to do those kinds of proofs where they are warranted - it makes them “a good idea” in a lot more places than they used to be when they were so much more expensive to perform.

It’s called symbolic AI, or sometimes GOFAI for good old-fashioned AI. It’s no longer considered AI by the wider public, it seems. I believe those techniques are still widely used, but they have reached their limit quite some time ago. Cyc was maybe the high water mark of that approach. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

Reading the comments, wow AI is polarizing. Neither side will budge.

I guess only time will tell, to see if all the AI code will actually come crashing down.

Non AI code has been crashing down for decades, controlled chaos, continuous improvement. We have lots of tools to put metrics on that, and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics. It’s not 100% self sufficient code creation Nirvana, but it might be fairly compared to the Cotton Gin in terms of making the field workers more productive in the delivery of market ready code/cotton.

We have lots of tools to put metrics on that, and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics.

You mean more lines of code?

Are you trying to make a joke or a serious contribution

Not all metrics are good. LOC is about as bad as they get.

Bugs per merge is a much better one.

that was previous commenter’s point. you missed it. LLM coding assistants are for people who can’t think their way through an algorithm.

Non AI code has been crashing down for decades,

i.e. the code that made literally everything until a few years ago? That was crashing?

Yes

Yes, which means most every code crashes at some point. Whether it is made by humans or not.

the code that made literally everything until a few years ago? That was crashing?

Quite a bit more than it should.

but it might be fairly compared to the Cotton Gin in terms of making the field workers more productive in the delivery of market ready code/cotton.

Last i heard was that developers FELT like it made them more productive but actually not so much.

Last i heard was that developers FELT

Several of those studies were published on early 2025 data, LLM agents have been rapidly improving since then. In early 2025 I would agree with the sentiment - it was kind of equivocal for overall productiveness. By early 2026 I’d say it was a much clearer advantage, both in doing the same kind of work faster, but more importantly: in doing better work at the same speed or even a little faster.

and AI assisted code is fairly well crushing those metrics.

Lol. You have zero understanding of efficient coding, don’t you?

There really is a difference between AI-assisted coding and vibe coding, and I don’t know enough about actually coding to look at their repos and tell you what’s happening.

The issue is, there’s also difference between how people cram “AI-assistance” into their previously well-refined workflows. Did see the odd person ending up with the same issues as straight-out vibe coding but without the speed, including the eventual (mild) AI psychosis and later switching to vibe coding after the chatbot convincing him.

Also I think it would be pretty trivial to generate an “understanding” of the code, yet AI boosters never bring up it as a concern.

“AI-assisted” will inevitably turn into AI-generated over time as the babysitters get complacent.

Sooner than later most things the average person does will sort of be vibe coded like compiling to an intermediate language. The idea of apps and walled gardens will not be as important. Instead of approved apps, it will be approved models and agents. Even the idea of an operating system is going to change. Linux is a great space for integrating the computing environment with AI coding. The full source is available to the model and any change you ask it to make can just be done for you. The idea of running a “Linux” or “Windows” could be limited to certain software and domains.

I think that certain things will be fairly resistant to forking, even by AI. Foundational software like the kernel, compilers, basic tools, databases, and so on will likely benefit more from being used as the standard/vanilla version rather than a modded version (especially a vibe-modded one).

But people and companies will experiment with this for sure and it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the less software-competent hardware companies start making their Linux forks or drivers with LLMs, at least for a couple of years in the near future.

I also think that this will shift lots of companies further away from GPL toward MIT/BSD, because they’ll want a fully moddable source but they won’t want to share what they’re vibecoding.

A bit unrelated, but I wonder if I’m the only one left that is:

• Using small, open-weight models
• Asking it to only write small snippets that I can easily go through, check and understand.
• Copying pasting from good old web frontends instead of integrating it into my editor or whatever else people do with agents nowadays.

I feel like when we’re talking about AI this sort of usage gets lumped into the same pile as agentic vibe coding and it’s not helpful for discussion. Surely most people wouldn’t find this problematic?

Probably.

My company is currently pushing “loop engineering” on us… They are in love with Claude and keeps referring to it as “him”. Very proudly announce that “I set ut a loop, and he closed 40 PRs while I slept!” (without review, of course). Based on vibe written tickets as well, which contains many hallucinations.

The poor QA department (2 people) is now trying to figure out how to test all the slop.

We usually say “the other guy”, or sometimes we say “I & AI” (a poor twst on a Rastafarian saying)

Things like this radicalize people against all AI.

The poor QA department (2 people) is now trying to figure out how to test all the slop.

I’d hand in my resignation…

I’m actively looking for another job, had an interview yesterday, crossing my fingers!

Best of luck!

Thank you! 😁

I prefer it less for the writing part (unless big refactors that aren’t actually complex) and more for analysis. If you got a couple million lines of code upstream that you depend on heavily (ERP modules) then it’s nice to fire off a prompt and come back to “you got weird behavior x because upstream changed y, here’s the exact file and lines and how it flows there”

I don’t get the copy pasting. That’s just a convenience thing. You can easily integrate local models into an IDE.

No, there are plenty on the left doing exactly that. Plenty don’t mention it because there’s been so much AI pushback they don’t want to be written off, others don’t mention it because they know it doesn’t really contribute to the conversation most times. It’s unlikely that your use is reflective of most AI use in these large projects.

Realistically, even your use doesn’t address some people’s issues. People dislike that the training data was used without consent, that’s not really addressed by open weight models. You checking and understanding the output is great, but a lot of people take issue with having offloaded that to the AI in the first place. Maybe your use doesn’t have the same negative environmental impact as some of the other models, but I’m not sure it really matters. If we’re using AI then inevitably some outputs will have larger environmental impact than others.

I am not saying your AI use is the problem with humanity or anything, but no, you’re not alone. Most people just aren’t talking about people like you and your specific situation doesn’t actually fully address people’s issues with AI regardless.

I have occasionally used anonymous browser sessions in the way you describe, and I still feel dirty for it and think it’s problematic. It did not affect the quality of my code because I never did the 2nd bullet, I never asked for drop-in code or used any, but the ethical implications suck donkeyballs so I hate that I do this occasionally - I blame really bad documentation of some build environments.

As long as you have an understanding of what you’re copying and pasting, your fine IMO.

I’d argue that this news is over-blown. The project has more than a solid and honorable track record with insanely talented engineers behind it. AI is a new technology that is not going anywhere. I would put my faith into their decisions to improve this project by whatever means they think are best.

The truth is most commenters are not technically skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions. If GOS team, who again would be at the top % in the field, feel that this can elevate the project, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt?

Exactly this. As much as I hate the current AI scenario across the board, the GOS team has shown, time and again, that they are stellar developers and coders, that they genuinely care about security, and that they are the best at countering anti-privacy on the technology front.

If any team can use AI responsibly to improve all this, it’s the GOS team. And if it ends up failing on it’s face, I expect them to move away from it if things go south. Now, if they don’t because of ‘AI addiction’, then I will be looking at what my alternative options are. Until them, I’m 100% with them, as they have not given me any reason yet to doubt their judgement.

I don’t need to be skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

AI is the stolen collective labor from all of humanity, thrown into a blender with magic mushrooms and LSD, then locked behind a paywall and operating out of massive datacenters, thats destroying communities and the planet and undoing 40 years of efficiency and environmental gains.

I dont need to be a skilled engineer, a brilliant software developer, or anything else, to know thats bad, and that every single cunt piece of shit that enables it, defends it, and worst of all, uses it are, at the very most positive outlook at it possible, thieves who are willing to sacrifice actual human life, just so they can generate a random emulsion of coding (in this case, or in other cases generate images of nude children, celebrities, your mother, or tell people on the brink of psychosis that they are actually jesus, or any of the other vile evil shit that it does) that might function, at the expense of actual human labor and well being.

And every single motherfucking one of them that make that decision deserve convicted, and to be hung from a tree.

That’s the communication problem in these conversations. Whether it’s a useful tool and whether it’s an ethical tool are two different questions. People come in and attack the developers for generating slop, and they respond that they are experienced developers who can use the tool properly to increase the security of the code or whatever. And the conversation here is about that.

And then someone like you comes in talking about ethics, which is what we should be talking about, but we are talking past each other.

The truth is most commenters are not technically skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

I don’t need to be skilled to evaluate or critique their decisions.

You are both correct. But the former is about the engineering, the latter is about ethics. You do need to technically skilled to evaluate whether AI is a useful tool. You don’t need to in order to critique it on ethical grounds. These are completely different topics that have nothing to do with each other.

no, we are not talking about two different things.

We are talking about one single thing.

the theft of human potential for profit, and the sacrifice of the world for the enrichment of the few due to exploiting that theft.

You are just trying to play word games and split the discussion to defend the indefensible.

Lol you are so argumentative that this is how you respond to someone agreeing with you? Forcibly putting me into the “opposing camp” against my will. All right then, live your delusion while we fight AI without you.

the only people getting a net use out of LLM garbage are sub-par programmers. and I say that partially as a self burn because I have consulted slop chatbots to get some keywords / usage examples for functions I didn’t know yet. Even though I never used any drop-in code, and verified the usage of all that I “learned” from such conversations, the output was incredibly shitty and had to many holes in it that most people wouldn’t even spot because “it just works”. Using slop bots in coding / vibe-coding is offloading your incompetence as work onto future programmers.

Calling for the murder of other people in a public forum is never wise. At best, you could (should) be permanently banned. At worst, police could show up at your house and lock you away forever (the world would be better place for it!).

“Wah wah wah, someone called for criminal convictions and liability for this criminal behavior. IMMA RUN TO MOMMY MOD AND MAKE THEM DELETE IT”

So, username checks out…

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AI is a new technology that is not going anywhere.

I always wonder where this sentiment comes from. Whether or not AI is going anywhere is still very much up in the air