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.

It makes gatekeeper types in the Linux ecosystem happy, because it preinstalls you neovim, hyperland, and a bunch of bloatware, so they can get to their tinkering much faster.

Because they believe in unequality. They want you to follow certain set of morals, some of which has no basis in reality, all while they don’t follow any of it.

They don’t hate stuff like pedophilic poor people because pedophilia is bad. They hate pedophilic poor people because they want child molestation to be exclusively of theirs, a kind of a status symbol. Similarly they want you to not be gay for some weird pronatalist obsession of theirs, all while they want to secretly go to gay parties.

When Curtis Yarvin and others say they want feudalism back, they don’t mean a king that is nice like in the fantasy novels they read, they want the nobles to re exempt of the law. Or unequality.

tHe mOSt EthICaL Ai ComPanY

Here’s how this should have been handled, from day 1:

Upon releasing GPT-3, the then president Biden declares an emergency, and sends the military after Altman and his cohorts to arrest them. Then Biden declares he stopped the end of civilization, AI research gets shut down, the slop machine gets killed in its cradle. The men on the top get executed, no second thoughts, they said it is so dangerous it could end civilization.

Best you can get is them having to flee to Argentina if the general population finally awakens, but there’s a good chance that might never happen. However, it is more likely, that they can form their own network states on the remains of the USA, while watching Russia and China trying to grab as much land as possible from a safe distance.

Libertarian types, which the right is part of, see CSAM as just “recordings of crimes”, so they likely do it intentionally, to slowly change the general public’s view on the matter.

Awareness, the “I have nothing to hide” types slowly awakened (I used to be one of them), false arrests, etc.

Being “woke”.

Talk me more about how in the future, game controllers will be made obsolete by motion-sensing cameras, and we will all be jumping around in front of a big flat-screen TV playing party games and finger-gunning down bad guys in rail shooters!

While that’s true, there’s a pretty good chance that it will be negatively useful for many programmers even after the AI bubble burst.

Also e-mail is much easier and cheaper to self-host than an LLM, yet most people relying on 3rd parties. Even some big pushers of yOU cAn JuST seLf-HosT cHiNEse lLM MoDels use corpo e-mail accounts.

I think there could be some potential usecases for LLMs, but that’s not code generation (at least code that is not in the finished product), nor having it look up stuff in technical documentation.

Everyone is trying to chase the rational adaptation case. Everyone wants to 10x their projects, yet keep control over them, or at least 2x their productivity. But I’ve seen just as many people going insane from at least first trying to use it as a tool as vibe coders.

There’s a lot more centrists in FOSS than you realize, some are just very good at pretending.

Heartwarming: the worst industry possible has a correct take on something for once.

You can just say that you believe that no one should use AI.

At least for LLMs, yes. It is the most pragmatic resistance against AI as of now, especially considering how “useful” they are.

Sometimes one extreme is the correct one. Moderation can be a fallacy too.

Because AI boosters made people believe not using AI/not wanting to engage with AI generated output is an extremist position, so you must use AI, just read the output, and maybe rewrite it.

If only it was just a Mastodon instance (was thinking about creating “Twatter”, as a joke).

AI boosters are controlling the narrative around AI, and what constitutes as extreme positions on it. They made the general population believe, refusing to use AI, refusing to engage with genAI output, especially if paired with mean online comments, is extremism. Meanwhile they claim the “golden middle road” is using it as a tool, such as an already established artist using it to brainstorm ideas, use it for reference material, or use their preexisting capabilities to fix up the AI generated output. Similarly, pro-AI extremism is being downplayed to “slop posting”, especially if it is paired with severe AI psychosis.

Reality:

• There are now some actual anti-AI extremists. The worst of them would not mind sacrificing a portion of the population to put the genie back into the bottle. Less severe people would just put the tech oligarchy and some AI devs in front of a Nuremberg-style trial, ban the use of LLMs altogether, force AI companies to delete any models that made without consent, try to come up with an international agreement on a global AI ban, etc.
• Pro-AI extremists are a lot worse in actuality, than just some third world guy posting AI slop as a side hustle or engagement bait, to get ad revenue money. The DOGE boys’ excuse for the USAID massacre and the deregulation is that any problem, including 600 000 (!) people dying from USAID funds getting pulled, is that AI deregulation will lead to artificial superintelligence, which will lead to a quadtillion human being living in the solar system in a few centuries. TESCREAL is a fucking cult, that would be too extreme for Shin Megami Tensei, let alone the real world.
• “Moderate usage” or “rational adaptation” is often a slippery slope. I’ve seen way too many devs trying to use it as a “tool”, only to implement things on AI hallucinated specs and similar shenanigans, with many falling down the rabbit hole of loop engineering and vibe coding, all while claiming the decreased code quality worth the “productivity gains”. Said “productivity gains” don’t last for too long though.
• The “I want more ethical AI” crowd are usually hypocrites IMHO. At best, they secretly run their own model. At worst, they’re the same as your average AI bro with mild AI psychosis, except usually more leftist and more secretive about their AI usage. I heard that some devs who previously had issues with attributing open source code are those most likely to be in this group, though I cannot confirm due to lack of a solid evidence.
• Your average “can you please not post AI slop?” people are the real centrists.
• You’re right if you refuse to use AI, you’re right to not want to engage with AI slop, even if your aunt disagrees.

I propose this compromise:

• No surveillance, at all.
• Flock rebrands to the shitty SaaS startup its name suggested it to be. I want to see the YouTube ads for “IrfanView, but paid and is a 500+MB chromium app”!

You can use AI. Seriously! It’s a great tool for drafting. Just read what it gave to you , then write your own version, or polish the text. Don’t be a middleman between it and the answer.

This website is AI entryism