Using AI is not the same as vibe coding.
Asking AI to write a piece of code and then read it, understand and use, is a very reasonable use case.
People are forgetting the AI hype train is reliant on the fact that businesses and individuals can’t host the AI themselves, which is rapidly changing.
All that insane power that OpenAI and Anthropic have harnessed is suddenly completely useless when you can just spin up a competing model at home, with HF hosting a crap ton of finetuned models like uncensored/abliterated to do whatever you want with it.
Even Deepseek released their full size models if you happen to have 400Gb (or 1.5Tb) of VRAM lying around.
When the bubble (hopefully) pops, AI will just continue to be a tool that devs use where applicable, and likely not on a massive data center cloud as it migrates into consumer electronics.
I think this is a much more sensible attitude than the pitchfork wavers declaring mandatory zero-tolerance or you’re evil.
So this is how I hear about the outcome of the Debian vote. :( Is there a widespread distro that has a clear anti-Sloo stance?
Hyperbola definetely.
I believe gentoo is too.
deleted by creator
- he didn’t use AI, he used a slop bot.
- if he did, it’s possible he just used it for analysis
- either way it’d prove that no one is immune to becoming a moron, especially as they get older.
People who are vehemently against any form of AI will be left behind. That may be difficult to hear, and even more difficult to accept, but that is the cold, hard, truth.
Its a tool, and just like any tool it has uses. It can be used inappropriately, and it’s valid to criticize those instances. But if you are plugging your ears and going “Lalala!” when people talk about actual valid use cases, or stubbornly pretending that it has none, you will be left behind.
You will be like office employees from the 80’s and 90’s who refused to use a computer and then suddenly found themselves without a job. It’s your choice if you use it or not. It’s also every company’s choice to not hire you because of your unwillingness to adapt.
If you haven’t learned it yet, this is your warning and your wake-up call: Learn how to use AI now, or find a different career. It’s not going away, no matter how much you may bitch and moan. There will soon be two classes of people, those who learned how to use this emerging technology, and those who refused. Things will be much harder for that second group.
I don’t say this to be snarky or smug. I hate AI myself, but I also recognize how fucking stupid I’d have to be to refuse to use it. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it’s also the truth.
This falls apart the second you look at it when you see that it doesn’t take much learning to use that tool for most applications.
At the same time, people overly reliant on that tool take a big hit in developing and strengthening their own skilks and thinking capabilities.
Combine the two things if you still can.
Agreed, although simply using LLMs to do your thinking for you is only going to decrease your value in the workplace and make you more replaceable. The goal needs to be learning how to use AI to expand your thinking, counteract your biases, improve the quality of your work, and accelerate your learning.
I don’t know if you noticed you contradicted yourself there. Letting ai do your thinking decreasing your value and then, talking about using ai to replace your thinking.
Ai is causing psychosis because people are trying to use it to replace thinking. If you don’t use it you lose it, literally especially with your brain. You have to know how to produce those skills from within or you don’t have those skills and then you are worthless in any workplace, but more importantly to yourself. You have to be meta to the aim being the TV show, and control it from a place of checks and balances (us performing those checks and balances of ai) handing over the reigns of higher thinking to a machine designed to be a yes man, is not ever a pathway to expanding your thinking or even learning to use ai, that’s just sitting on a couch till you lose critical muscle mass, but it’s your brain. (No shame to sitting on a couch or losing muscle mass, I’m just trying to explain it in relative terms)
Currently there is no way to use ai without causing ai hallucinations, because there isn’t a model readily available that runs as a tool, there are only models that run as a manipulative tool that provoke said replacement of your thinking, I can not assume that’s an accident. Seeing the usual levels of evil that come from the companies pushing this hard, tells me this is just as evil, if not the most evil thing they’ve done, measured against all the things they’re openly flouting, copyright law, openly burning rare literature for a monopoly, burning the already past tipping point climate, burning computer ownership and accessibility, I could go on. Theres very open bribery and flouting of social rules laws and common moralities, they’re desperate to cause this monster they’ve created out of ai, to attach like the symbiot in aliens that I forget the name of because I’m pre first coffee and my brain just be like that.
I am anti ai, as it currently stands. The current versions need to be left to die in silence and hatred and rejection we are all collectively currently showing. Only because it has been made into a Frankensteins monster, by the people responsible who have infinite money to pay judges to rule their way and have zero morals, nay a deficit of morals.
Ai will survive the ai bubble, because the ai bubble is the unsustainable practices of the billionaires and the manipulative interface designed to lessen your critical thinking skills.
But the ai that survives the bubble will and should be so highly regulated (it’s currently the opposite) and used as a tool, not a replacement for critical thinking, it can never do that. But there are so many things it can do to better humanity, none of which are currently being used.
We have to wait this one out. We’re not missing any boat.
Like anything else, using the tool properly requires skill and care.
If AI can do it for you, then let it. If it can’t, that’s where your value lies. If you just refuse to let it do things it can do well, you will be replaced by someone who’s probably not as smart as you but simply willing to let AI do what it does well.
agreed
the issue I have with how people use it is that it’s easy to just create more shit that they spew out into the world
I’ve got no issue with people using tools to improve their work. I think it’s fair to say that AI is enough like predictive text and spell check when it comes to tools you can use at work. and like any tool, the user is still responsible for the end result
my main problem with AI is that it is absolutely fucking our world (environmentally and economically) to create pure garbage that is thrown in my face every day. like, scale it back a bit everyone…
Facts. Whether you like it or not. It’s good to have a healthy amount of criticism towards AI and to fact check it and not blindly trust. But you can’t wish it away or pretend it has zero merit. I guess you can…
Amen.
Why can I not upvote and downvote?
good thing that downvotes can only be used to suppress narratives on lemmy. lol
Please can someone fork the kernel, it would be so fucking funny
a multi-million dollar development budget. about 4000 contributors every year working on and maintaining over 40 million lines of code. ~ 15 percent is part of the ‘core’ kernel. ~ 60 percent is drivers that would need to be tracked, maintained and worked on.
might need more than a few ‘agents’ to keep up.
good luck.
Nothing wrong with using llms in useful ways, as long as they keep giving factual and unbiased information. Or you can look up stuff online and verify in a book at the library, although that could be outdated too, hmm. Unfortunately I noticed they do more of the “both sides have good points” (Perry’s scheme level 3 of 9), even when it’s a lopsided topic. We need impartial ratings somehow to show how biased the various models become and people will stay in the ones they like, or not use them or other ways to learn.
Locked into the low-level, high-control systems, they won’t learn how unhealthy they are and how to do better with freedom and equality, like it’s always been, just updated with the tech. Ask llms to use Sagan’s baloney detection kit and Perry’s highest thinking levels to analyze problems, with the main goal of how to help humanity, the environment, etc. that benefits the majority and minimizes damage. Try to make the llm work in favor of humanity rather than the owners’ greed.
Develop ego awareness, notice when it reacts with upset to new information, and choose to learn anyway. As you recognize the unhealthy indoctrination you absorbed, use that anger to break free from high-control systems, guided by the truth that sets you free. Then learn to manage the cognitive dissonance and the inner resistance that clings to the old beliefs once you’ve woken up to the truth. Good luck!
LLMs suck at writing code, but they are absolutely amazing at reading code and finding bugs. I am firmly against the usage of LLMs to write anything, but they have a place as a diagnostics tool when verified by a human.
IMO: Specifically, they’re bad at architecture and refactoring a small project into a large project. You have to jump through some hoops to make it craft something that needs more than 8m of context ram. If you can manage orchestration and multi-agents that don’t need to know each others context, you can start to pull off bigger stuff, but it’s not a forgone conclusion that it’ll be fine. The worst output comes from it getting stuck on something and trying less likely answers successively until it works. You really have to watch for it to struggle and at the very least stop and start to try some new randoms.
Also, anything other than Claude-code with some really well-done project definitions is a waste of time.
There are already several large projects that have hundreds of thousands of users and those projects were almost completely vibe coded. It’s almost the entire retro “recomp” scene now.
At my company we are currently moving to implement AI for exactly that. A cost effective review buddy.
Various developers have tried to use it for coding and I think apart for one time scripts or getting an initial structure generated, noone is convinced of AI.
Line completion is pretty damn handy, it’s when you start asking for whole functions that things go downhill
Yeah I’ve been using LLM’s in Rider for over a decade. I don’t have a problem with LLM’s. I do have a problem with how they’re currently used, and how people keep trying to use them to replace their own thinking.
I think they have a place in the coding scene, a limited niche place, but a place none the less. They just aren’t a replacement for software engineers. Architecture and intention are the big differences to me. An LLM cannot understand intention, it just makes statistical guesses that are often wrong.
Opus-class and higher models are actually great at writing code, but maybe it’s language dependent? I primarily work in TypeScript.
More than anything, it depends on the developer using it. In my experience, most are just slop shovelers that don’t read or review what Claude does. Then it falls on the PR reviewer (me) to be an asshole: Did you review your own code? Do you understand what this part over here does? Why did you choose this method versus alternatives?
Unless you tell Claude/Opus otherwise, it’s not going to take the initiative to refactor things, tidy up parts it didn’t touch, or hell, it won’t even spellcheck things. Can you really call it a language model if it outputs misspelled words? Its unit tests are great boilerplate but never comprehensive enough for me.
Claude is the developer that puts zero pride or effort in their work beyond the bare minimum to not get fired.
Opus in my experience sucks for writing code.
I’m not terribly concerned if people write code and test it with AI, so long as they verify the results themselves.
I recently saw someone try to add a PR to something on github with thousands of lines of changes and then they got mad when people didn’t want to do the free labour verifying it. That is a bullshit use of AI
The lemmysphere will never agree
If we ever find a way to deal with the whole “burning the planet” issue, their best use case is to find and match patterns, not to imitate them.
The idea of using a language model to process search engine input isn’t the dumbest part about Gemini and plenty of people report good results finding information easier and quicker with ChatGPT. In those cases, the deviation from rigid keywords is desirable because it can match results with related words rather than literal word-matching. Google Search already did a decent job at that (before the enshittification ran rampant), which more complex language models could improve even further.
The landmine is in their reproduction of those results, where the generated “summary” is the equivalent of a cunning bullshitter that convincingly sounds like he understood the topic but actually has no clue and just delivers a best guess. That’s where the deviation becomes a risk of misinformation or introducing bugs.
They should narrow things down by finding the likely answers where that matters, not produce more stuff that humans will have to double-check.
LLMs suck at writing code,
So far.
not to be an AI bootlicker, but i don’t get why people treat AI-generated code like it’s the Plague 2. it’s not; all code is constrained by the programming language, and so it either implements the feature correctly… or it doesn’t. yes, human review is undeniably important, but other than that, AI-generated code and human code is still all logic at the end of the day
-
Simply using an AI that’s run on a corporate data centers encourages the construction of yet more data centers, with all of the environmental/climate negatives they bring, as well as local harms they induce on the people living near them, such as increased electricity rates.
-
Using corporate AI directly helps the financial situations of those giant corporations (by boosting usage/user numbers, they are able to attract more investment capital), most of which are ran by right-wing CEO’s who are more than willing to collaborate with and fund fascist governments to ensure that they are not regulated in search of both maximum profits. Some of these companies, such as Nvidia, Palantir and Oracle, genuinely appear to be seeking to use these tools for what would previously be considered crackpot conspiracy theory levels of public control and surveillance.
-
I’m wary of the potential effects of AI usage resulting in declining or stagnating critical thinking based on some preliminary studies (example 1, example 2).
-
I do not think LLM’s can be “just a tool” as many claim.
-
99% of LLM’s (the ones virtually everyone use) are trained on copyrighted code that is incompatible with GPL licensed projects. LLM’s have a 3 to 10% chance to unknowingly reproduce the copyrighted code perfectly, introducing legal plagiarism into an open-source project, which could easily open up the developers to being sued in the future if companies scanned open source repos for copyright violations.
-
Many courts are ruling that LLM generated code cannot be copyrighted at all, meaning that it also cannot be legally made GPL, losing the protections from corporate exploration the GPL normally grants. https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
-
In my experience, the code AI generates, can be VERY bad. Like, sure it might work, assuming it didn’t randomly hallucinate and decide to randomly change a variable name half way through for no reason. But it’ll be a code base only AI can read. It looks like the spaghetti code I wrote when I first started learning. I’ve watched people build up massive documents to help guide the AI and it still crap out a mess.
If you know how to code, and you know exactly what it needs to do, and you manage to contain it… it can produce code that’s fine. But if you’re not a SME in the language, libraries, frameworks, etc… and you just let AI do whatever, it’s garbage-in garbage-out. But because the computer did it, because AI did it, people just implicitly trust it. Despite the warnings and general knowledge that AI will make mistakes.
AI has really shown how and why so many people fall for obvious lies on social media.
Over the past 5 years specifically, nearly every single piece of software I use from OS, to apps, to even legacy programs I trusted for decades have started to produce more bugs, are less stable, and less reliable.
At the same time, AI has been forced on people and AI using devs are proliferating while we still lack an understanding of AIs cognitive affects on us.
What exactly am I supposed to think? That all the programmers pushing AI on me like Crypto Bros while their programs work worse are smart, well intentioned people?
You can say whatever you want, I use the software, shits gotten absolutely terrible lately, and it’s not just the purposefully enshitified software either.
“AI makes it easier to be lazy and produce buggy software faster” is your claim, which I agree with. But I have to note that “thus AI can’t be used to produce high quality software” is not something that follows from that.
It’s been 5 years since mass public forced adoption and things have just gotten progressively worse.
The tool was not put out responsibly, and most importantly, the CEOs and companies leading the charge currently cannot be trusted.
AI has been a massive bust, has helped accelerate climate change, destroyed lives, raises power bills, and for what?
I’m not saying don’t R&D it and don’t use it, but forcing it down people’s throats and technofascist CEOs being in charge of this dumpster fire is killing us.
Your claim seems to be “forcing it down people’s throats and technofascist CEOs being in charge of this dumpster fire is killing us”. That doesn’t seem to generalize to the actually-voluntary usage we’re talking about.
because it’s a perfect storm. The way it’s being managed by businesses is causing :
- Layoffs
- RAM shortages
- Propaganda
- Environmental problems
So, the tool is getting a bad rep. never mind that for over a decade, machine learning was something that was tinkered away and thought of as “one day this is going to be amazing”, now it’s being wielded by assholes trying to be TRILLIONAIRES and people are losing their jobs, access to technology, political and environmental collapse.
To top it off, before you could contextualise ML in statistics and say “it’s a work in progress, some things are not quite right” but now you have ads saying “Replace your humans with our AI/Robots” as if it’s 100% reliable, a drop in replacement and not going to provide any social ills.
Exactly. The concept of an LLM is perfectly fine, we’ve had its precursors like markov chains and neural nets for decades, the issue is how their being created and used these days, particularly the scale of it. LLMs are the shiny new toy the way blockchains were previously, so all the tech bros and utterly clueless CEOs are rushing out to embrace the hot new thing and demand it be shoved into every nook and crany because they think if they don’t they might not make every last cent they possibly might.
I think the people most extreme about it haven’t done much development.
Or they have, professionally, and associate it with very real AI psychosis at work.
Or they’re in school and see LLMs ruining the student body, as we’ve seen some in other Lemmy posts.
It all comes down to ethical tool sourcing, and using those tools in moderation, responsibly. Like all sorts of other automation/technology that’s popped up in programming…
But I guess I’m saying I can sympathize with absolute “no-LLM-code” positions, too. The way true vibe-coding has been peddled to the public really has done tremendous damage, and honestly the space deserves the negative attention its getting, and then some.
The fact of the matter is as an AI hater I do actually trust AI generated code if run through the right people. I just don’t know when the people I trust will trust the AI more than themselves, and that’s part of the worry. Are they going to be as diligent on checking their AIs bug fix #125 if the first 124 were perfect? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly am not trusting AI code in the hands of vibe coders who have no idea what they’re doing and are only contributing to a project because it happens to allow AI contributions.
I also just don’t like LLMs in general, the way they collected data, the way they were trained on data, the way they are affecting communities across the globe, and the harm the people at the top of these companies are doing, not to mention the job loss which is really not a main concern of mine. I don’t like the idea of people using tools that are so harmful if it can be avoided.
I’d wager people like linux devs will learn exactly how unreliable they are, quickly, once they start using them. Its kind of impossible to miss.
There’s a chance some devs succumb to AI psychosis, but that’s why these large open source projects are institutionalized. No one person can ruin them, by design.
As for ethics, I think the open weights LLMs are far more ethical, albeit far from perfect. They’re trained modestly, presented as tools, apache licensed, self host able, more efficient to run, and good enough; people just need to know they exist as an alternative.
Open weight LLMs are not trained any differently than all the others. They just publish the weights. It’s still massive theft run through a data center.
There is no (good) coding LLM trained ethically because securing rights to the amount of code and text required has not been attempted and is likely not possible. The best you can do is a company who hid a “by using this service you give us rights to use your code/writing to train our LLM” into a six page EULA no one reads and that’s just a different kind of unethical.
Some models like Nemotron use open datasets, and utilize hardware more efficiently than OpenAI and such.
Its (IMO) also quite different when the weights are Apache licensed. If absolutely zero profit is involved, that gets close to the “fair use” umbrella, IMO, like other noncommercial derivative works of restrictively licensed content (fanfics/fanart).
You are not wrong about the closed datasets though, for the vast majority of LLMs. Lord knows what the Chinese trainers or OpenAI use to train…
But anything truly “open weights” is still a different order of magnitude in the ethics scale, IMO. I view the primary issue to be profiting off the scraping and training; take that away, and its not nearly as egregious.
ethical tool sourcing
Almost everybody that brings up ethical LLMs is full of shit because they point to them existing as a defense then turn around and use claude.
I don’t. I’ve never had an OpenAI or Claude subscription. Basically the only thing I’ve used Claude API for is science/testing when comparing it to an open weights model, and I haven’t done that in some time.
I’ve never felt a need to, either.
Not that Im perfectly innocent or anything. Or that you’re wrong. People DO exactly this, and it makes me scratch my head.
Oh. No. I’m sorry, unrelated to the ai debate, but I have to correct this. Software architecture is intensely not raw logic sequences like you learn in uni. Everything before compilation is cooperative abstract modeling that does not necessarily impose any change at all in the binary. You are essentially teaching laymen that all programming languages for the same plattform are a creative choice, that extensibility, robustness, scaling or maintenance are just completely imagined fields of research. I’m sorry but that statement is complete nonsense misinformation. The binary itself, while it’s a stretch; sure, in a way it can be considered only logic. From a certain angle. But that viewpoint is actively unhelpful for understanding what code is. The product is always so much more than the machine code. Consider writing raw arm instructions vs the obfuscated js that our engines churns through that decides most of our executing logic. All that is architecture and affects output only through the lens of the machine code. You have to enter the "code“ any time anything breaks, or is updated, if even a single thing is not as expected, or if you wanted to iterate on the program, or collaborate, you have to move into abstract land and then the architecture matters. The term spaghetti code does not mean that the logic is messy. The compiler wil usually remove most such mistakes. Instead the whole architecture, the “blueprint” the “workbench” is the magic of code, even if it is often obscure for the user is much more important for their experience than the raw logic.
why people treat AI-generated code like it’s the Plague 2
It’s just another part of the grift. The so-called “resistance” actually promotes the Big Lai that “AI” exists.
AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it. We can’t (reasonably) run an OS free of proprietary software, does that mean the free software movement should just give up?
“People are going to murder anyway, so why even make murder illegal?”
You are correct, you should make rules even understanding that they will be broken by some.
You can enforce consequences for murder. You can investigate and differentiate a murder from an accidental death. Don’t be disingenuous.
Yes, debugging with an LLM is absolutely as bad as murder. Probably worse! \s
Not even remotely what I suggested.
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.
“Murder bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place”
But they aren’t impossible to enforce and you know that.
This isn’t a case where something can’t be enforced perfectly, it is a case of something that can’t be enforced at all going into the future. Every tool that can reliably detect LLM code is at the same time the tool used for adversarial training, making the generated code look more and more human. We are already at the point where for plain english the false positives and false negatives go through the roof, making these tools very unreliable and when applied automatically a liability. Code is a lot more formalized, with a lot less personal variance (spelling, vocabulary and grammar are basically fixed - only the used logic and how it is implemented is variable), making detection harder by default than in natural languages.
If LLM code can’t be detected anymore by automated means - and that state of things is approaching fast - then any policy about allowing or restricting LLM code is not worth the paper you would use to print it out. But that’s not so much of a problem. The more important policy to set, that can also be enforced, is that everyone submitting code has to take personal responsibility regarding the quality of the submission. Delivering bad code - when not happening while training to become a better coder and looking for feedback - has to lead to consequences based on the seriousness of the case and if it’s a repeat offender. Anyone using an LLM to spit out bullshit LQ code will run into that kind of rule very fast.
Exactly. There are too many knee jerk responses to this position. Just banning LLM generated code is a useless gesture.
Changing the way merges and reviews are handled, as well as responsibility for them, is the actual way to address this.
I think one way is to make people realize that there is a concept in copyright called Threshold of Originality, meaning that because machine generated output in itself is not creative work, it’s not copyrightable. You can do literally anything with it, the licenses attached don’t matter. The GPL is not enforceable and no proprietary EULA is enforceable.
The entire point of GPL is to forcefully extract copyright out of the code in the first place.
No? The point of the GPL is to leverage such a copyright.
I think of it like age verification. Slipperly slope to a proprietary kernel-level “security compliance module” on all devices, aka the end of general computation.
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.
This is the entire basis for the War on (some) Drugs. Guess what? Drugs won.
Power is nothing without enforceability, and purposely implementing rules or laws that can’t be enforceable is a form of malice and discrimination through selective enforcement.
People are begging to regulate “AI” when it doesn’t even exist and there’s not even an objective definition.
Absolute recipe for failure or worse.
I agree, we should absolutely toss out all those laws against murder because they can’t be enforced perfectly or equitably.
Oh, please… is it still a text generator, or is it already a religion?
Didn’t you love T9 back in the days?
I’m just a movement generator.
Saying “it’s a text generator” cannot be the full force of your criticism, if the text it generates is incredibly useful. What could AI be on a screen if not a text generator?
Your views have got to be formed by WHAT text is generated given that AI cannot express itself through any other channel than text.
If you can give AI a deeply complex code base and ask it to find the likely cause of an obscure bug, and the solution is right, then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
And given that no other system has previously enabled this form of reasoning, it seems a shame to judge AI on semantics, rather than usefulness.
If you can give AI a deeply complex code base and ask it to find the likely cause of an obscure bug, and the solution is right, then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
Absolutely not. LLMs are just prediction engines for words.
If a LLM has the right answer, it only means that the model had the correct training data for your issue. Nothing more.
That is absolutely not how it works at all
What do you mean? That’s exactly how LLMs work. That’s why they “hallucinate”.
No they hallucinate because they lose context but are tasked to answer anyways. They also don’t really lose context as much as they did a year ago.
Their training data has nothing to do with it unless you’re using a local one without web access.
ML is my career and I’ve been doing it for decades. You’re wrong. LLMs hallucinate with full context.
I miss when we thought the future was ML.
Uh huh, and how does it work?
It can’t reason. It doesn’t think. It makes shit up as it was trained to do. It can sort of detect patterns and make a guess about what response would get it the highest score, but it’s so error-prone that a human has to verify the output anyway. It’s difficult to tell whether the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. There are many different types of LLMs and use cases.
As a person who values life and our environment, I’d rather not participate in the sloppification of our world. As a Linux user, I am wary of vibe coded flaws slipping under the radar and screwing up my system.
I have to verify the output of what humans generate, too. I’m constantly looking at the source of claims. The AI is no different and it’s not nearly as wrong as a Person is.
Saying “it’s a text generator” cannot be the full force of your criticism,
That is no criticism, just a statement.
My criticism goes to people who assign some metaphysical meaning to AI, or want to treat all it’s output like a contagious pest.
I’m just a movement generator.
Which is way more complex than just predicting text, because you have to predict physics and all that stuff. There is a reason most robots controlled by neural nets have failed hilariously so far.
then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
By that logic you could say a compiler is reasoning. But the reasoning displayed was happening when the compiler (or LLM training material respectively) was written.
You might be a few years behind. We have robots outpacing human performance in specific tasks using neural networks.
Also, LLMs can perform on tasks they weren’t explicitly trained for. This line is not as well defined as you make it sound.
You are on Lemmy so defending AI use will net you down votes. I am an anti-AI person, practically, but you make a very fair and objective point. 👍 I up vote you, not because I agree with AI use but because this is a proper point to make in a proper discussion, which is what this place should be about.
Kudos.
NetBSD banned submitting “Tainted Code” in their commit guidelines…
https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html
May be time to dump Linux, Linus.
I’ve been thinking about doing just this, but I haven’t seen any evidence that BSD is actually usable in real life yet.
Linux is actually good today, it’s a viable alternative to the big corpos for virtually anybody, and the community is big enough to be sustainable. Also Steam has made Linux gaming a real thing.
If I could build a little pc to try BSD out on I would, I’d love for the competition to be there… But even a raspberry pi is like $500 today. It’s insane. Fucking AI.
Hi! I use FreeBSD as a daily driver.
I browse the web, code, and game on it. Works great for me.
My current wishlist is for FreeBSD to have a more robust process supervision system (Dinit I’m looking at you) and for pkg to include some kind of declarative way to build.
It’s great, I love it, join devil Linux.
Pretty much all the “necessary” things do work on BSD, Linux has turned into a gaming OS for me, like Windows had been before 11 was so bad I just couldn’t do it anymore.
I pretty much use office stuff, and multimedia things, with games thrown in now that I’ve ditched Microsoft completely. Figure Linux could stay on a handheld, like a Steam Deck, and consider it a toy like I had WIndows from 7 to 10 when it was at least functional. There is Linux emulation on BSD, too, and I see a setup guide to run the native Linux Kodi port on it.
Damn it… Ok I’ll think about it. I’m not ready to wipe my laptop for it but maybe I can find an alternative.
Still looks like they allow it as long as it gets approval by the core team. Not saying I agree with that choice, but there’s still a very real chance LLM-generated code makes it into NetBSD.
Code generated by a large language model or similar technology, such as GitHub/Microsoft’s Copilot, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, or Facebook/Meta’s Code Llama, is presumed to be tainted code, and must not be committed without prior written approval by core.
I’m glad Linus is pragmatic about this, ethical questions aside LLM’s are a highly valuable tool in software development and they are likely to continue to improve. Any engineer fighting the use of LLM’s will ultimately find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are. Open weight LLM’s have also come a long way and are already good enough for daily use.
find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are
I’ve been reading this for 3 years and all I’ve seen so far is my peers making more work for me by going on wild goose chases and making me wade through slop. I do believe there are ways to use it responsibly and productively but that is definitely not what is happening on average.
I don’t understand why so many people decided to take “LLMs increase productivity” as an axiom instead of using their fucking eyes and looking at what is happening around them.
Any engineer fighting the use of LLM’s will ultimately find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are.
How do you measure that?
I am asking because I tried all the AI coding tools (copilot, cursor, claude code, etc.), even the paid versions, to find the utopia that doubles my productivity where lots of people are talking about. But everytime I find they take more time to generate code than me typing it, they rarely get things right the first time, they produce way more code than needed (which is much more to reason about) and all in all it takes longer to achieve something using “AI” instead of doing it on my own.
The worst results are the ones that seem to be correct, but can only be found incorrect on closer inspection. For instances, a part of my job is to write data collection applications for sensors; those sensors come with a datasheet (usually 100 to 200 pages) that explain how to “talk” to the sensor. Sounds perfect for an LLM - throw the datasheet in, get a small C application out. But either I get something that does not even compile, or something that seems to collect data, but configures the sensor completely wrong. Debugging that takes more time than just working through the datasheet myself and program it myself.
Yeah, my work is forcing us to use Claude for everything now. More than ever, I’m convinced that using AI is slower and worse than me just doing it by hand.
UNLESS, if I blindly accept the output, then Claude is faster. Sure, I can close the ticket in 15 minutes. Is it right? Idk. Is it good? Idk. Does it have bugs? Idk. Did it make shit up? Idk. Did anything even get compiled or tested? Idk. The ticket is closed though and that’s all that matters, apparently.
How do you measure that?
The other day I did a google search for a basic JavaScript function. Gemini gave me almost the exact function that I needed. Should I have closed my eyes or smashed my head with a hammer until I forgot? Ofc I used it. It was the first result, helpful, and easy.
I don’t believe in “AI” since it doesn’t exist, but these augmented or summarized searches can definitely be helpful. I imagine it’s the same with other LLMs, search engines, etc.
Well that’s because copilot and cursor are pure shit, and claude code is overpriced and over rated.
TBH I have been hopping between agent frameworks, but mostly I use locally run Qwen or Deepseek to draft individual function blocks or brainstorm in a notepad interface:
https://github.com/lmg-anon/mikupad
And manually insert them as I review the code… I like my stuff uncomplicated and unobstructed.
If I were to pick an API provider today, I’d buy one year of Xiaomi MiMo, because it is dirt cheap and good enough. GLM and Deepseek are great, but more expensive since they are popular now.
They are really not that distinct, all the models cheat off each other just like they cheat copyrights.
The entire premise of chatbots is to have a simple natural-language interface instead of those scary GUIs and programming languages. The idea that maybe they didn’t know enough about how to interact with ai, and that’s why it failed to help them, is a little silly, and the more you explain how we’re all using ai wrong, the sillier you look.
You’ve obviously sunk a lot of costs into genai, both in time and money, and that is making you defensive. Somebody that isn’t impressed by Claude premium isn’t going to do any of what you suggest, let alone get any more value out of it, and that’s valid for them. You’re not seriously interested in helping them professionally, you are just insecure.
I dispute all of this
The entire premise of chatbots is to have a simple natural-language interface instead of those scary GUIs and programming languages.
Absolutely not. This is not what text models were made for, it’s what jerks like Altman and Modi twisted them into with marketing.
The idea that maybe they didn’t know enough about how to interact with ai, and that’s why it failed to help them, is a little silly, and the more you explain how we’re all using ai wrong, the sillier you look.
I’m not blaming the user, I’m saying they’re crap services. I think the superlative/cursing is necessary here; they are so bad and enshittified it is astounding.
You’ve obviously sunk a lot of costs into genai, both in time and money, and that is making you defensive.
I have paid a total of a few bucks into APIs, I’ve never had a Claude or OpenAI subscription in my life. I don’t know why you would assume this.
Somebody that isn’t impressed by Claude premium isn’t going to do any of what you suggest, let alone get any more value out of it, and that’s valid for them. You’re not seriously interested in helping them professionally, you are just insecure.
I’m not insecure about this. I don’t need LLMs or generative ML, though I am interested in it. I have many dire personal issues, but people are free to program however they wish and I’m not going to gaslight anyone about that.
I do think text models have been bastardized into “a simple natural-language interface instead of those scary GUIs and programming languages.” That is NOT what they were intended to do, no matter how much Claude tries to sell people on it. I think this misunderstanding is extremely important because it’s exactly what’s propping up abominations/scams like OpenAI/Anthropic.
But they can still be extremely useful tools in narrower scopes, like all machine learning has for over a decade, and I’m not going to shy away advocating for that. I do resent all of LLMs being pigeonholed so tightly, and if people are going to try them, I at least want to point them to a more reasonable/frugal source than Claude premium and Claude Code.
Evangelizing llms is pretty much all you do on here, you have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on them. If you’re not even willing to accept that you have sunk costs relating to genai, your stating “I’m not insecure about this” is really not compelling.
Evangelizing llms is pretty much all you do on here, you have spent an enormous amount of time and effort on them.
This is a fair point. I talk about it a lot here, too much TBH.
Sorting by New Comments, topics like this are mostly what come up and peak my interest… I suppose I need to curate/moderate my Lemmy feed, like I’ve been telling myself I should do for some time.
ethical questions aside
And his here is the problem. Oh yeah lets just waive off the biggest critisicm on and issue of AI.
Hitler was a pretty neat guy, ethnic cleansing aside.
And before you say this, no, i am not comparing you to hitler, I’m only using an over the top example to hopefully make my point more clear.
I think the better analogy is, the advances in rocketry made under hitler were pretty neat and just because Hitler was an evil guy who did evil shit doesn’t mean we should have thrown that away. By all means stop giving money and influence to the big AI companies, but the advances made can still be repurposed.
Yes so of course my actual opinion is a little more nuanced than this. I absolutely see the uses of AI, I won’t deny that. I just fundamentally disagree with the way it is being used right now (by which I mean the gas-turbine-powered datacenters it requires, the noise pollution they create, the unethical/outright illegal acquiring of training data.
If you’re using a local model, whose training did not deprive actual people of huge amounts of water or electricity, and did not use stolen data, I’m all for it. But most people aren’t, they’re using ChatGPT or Gemini or whatever Microsoft is making.
Continuing your analogy, this would be like flying rockets manufactured by the third reich, not other companies using the same technologies.
Will the Tesla be the next Beetle?
The main difference is that rockets are expressly for the purpose of murdering people, so I would argue that the research shouldn’t be continued or done at all.
Fortunately I’m pretty sure that people developing these computer programs are serious about trying not to murder people - even if just for legal reasons.
Rockets literally got us to the moon what do you mean.
Wow, just speedrunning Godwin’s Law, aren’t we?
I guess I’m going to go back to work and talk to my five LLM sessions that are working on different tickets.
Wasting all that extra water will certainly teach him a lesson.
“Ai is literally Hitler”
-fediverse user, 2026
I hope you’re joking, but I did explicitly state that was not my intention.
I’m only using an over the top example to hopefully make my point more clear.
If that’s the only example available that illustrates the point, then you have not spent enough time thinking through your idea.
Do better.
Do better.
lmao fuck off
Thanks for admitting you haven’t got a legitimate argument.
“I don’t like your example, give me a different one.”
“No.”
“Checkmate libtard. So much for the tolerant left.”
ROFL.
Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. Again.
I remember people being angry at IDEs for making programming too easy and belittling code colourization as for children.
There will always be a crowd that wants everything to stay the way they know it.
Some people still think that digital artists aren’t real artists.
It’s usually the illiterate that proclaim the sharpest opinions too. Linus is very steady and rational on this, he sees the operator as responsible and the real author. Which is I think how it should be. It reminds me of piracy debates in early internet. You have to be insane to think it is possible to prevent the use of a tool that you could just use and not say you used. It’s just futile and honestly just a counter psychosis of the same polarized issue. I just wanna tell both sides: Its not really a debate, because nobody is in charge or could ever enforce a decision either way. It’s also a form of privilegium overload to just think we can legislate or de-arm this knowledge and hunt the users down. It is an extreme position to think that it isn’t going to continue existing.
Conservatives.
Yeah, ethical, environmental, legal and fuck the consumer memory questions aside.
That’s every corp and government in existence.
Well it’s about time those slackers caught up. And all they needed was a slop machine.
I think most misplaced critic comes from people not understanding or knowing the different types of AI. Some even hate all types of intelligence it seems.
Especially their own. Every single day, the backlash looks more like garden-variety anti-intellectualism to me.
Chess engines have been using AI, specifically, neural networks, for years before ChatGPT or other LLMs. Nobody complained.
What are you talking about?
Chess using neural nets didn’t happen until around 2017 with Alpha Zero, based on Google DeepMind.
Ie… Two years after OpenAI was founded. ChatGPT is part of the exact same tech rush.
Nobody complained because chess is harmless, ChatGPT is not 🤷
Please understand that ChatGPT was released in November 2022.
And also understand that the distinction between chess and ChatGPT is the point of the comment. These two things both use AI but one is harmless and useful while the other is not.
Chess engines didn’t require data centers that guzzle water and spit out pollution like an 18th century factory.
Exactly right. That is the distinction I’m trying to draw.
Here we go again!
You conflate one type of AI with all the other ones. Call it LLM or generative AI.
I programmed AI 20 years ago, it still is AI but doesn’t use datacenters. I programmed deep neural networks ten years ago, it did not use datacenters either.
And that’s why no one is opposed to those.
You didn’t pirate the collective works of humanity to train on, while under a society that requires intellectual property rights to ensure those creators are compensated, in order to undercut them twice (once to train and once to replace them)
You didn’t pollute the sky, dry the soil, bulldoze people’s homes to make your chessbot.
You didn’t corner the market on components to brute force the solution to declare yourself computer god, where everyone must come to you for compute.
Gen AI seeks to replace humans and it’s not even sentient. I don’t give a single fuck how useful a fancy algorithm is, it’s not ok with me if it’s designed to destroy my life.
No but we did all that for Taylor swift and Walmart. Hopefully you don’t do anything with any major brands at all.
Well do the work and call it for what it is, not just “AI”.
Generative AI.
LLM
Is it truly that hard?
I mean you seem to want to, and thus we can have a discussion about it, which I favour instead of having people just being generally angry it seems.
The day when it doesn’t crush the environment, should we use gen AI to help us in our daily lives? Or should we not? Is there something good in it? Or isn’t it? I’d love seing constructive discussions but they just get globbed by people thinking with their gut it seems. Like if you don’t hate “AI” then you’re pro genocide.
Sorry for the rant!
They did, just on a smaller scale, and they used all games ever played by high-level players. LLMs and image generators were stealing data years before they became viable. And nobody gave a shit.
Let’s not pretend most people give a shit about ethics or the environment. Those were impacted long before AI became viable in any way. People hate on AI because it’s affecting everyday prices and employment. Ethics and environment are just convenient shiny arguments few actually stand behind.
If tomorrow billionaires turned around and said “actually, here’s UBI for everyone, provided by AI!”, most people would be cheering on intellectual theft and destruction of this earth, and call everyone still against it selfish and regressive.
Ethics and environmental destruction are “convenient shiny arguments”?? Go fuck yourself you delusional shill. Praying for a billionaire saviour while gagging on their boots, fuck you.
Most people don’t give a shit about ethics and the environment. They care about the well being of themselves, the well being those close to them, and their comfort, ABOVE ALL ELSE. even if they won’t admit it to themselves.
Delusional? I wish I was. Look at the last 30 years, how many protested to get climate change taken seriously? How many raised their voices against various human rights violations around the world? A drop in a bucket, that’s how many. Most people just don’t give a shit about anything that doesn’t affect them and it’s plain to see.
So yes, for majority of people, ethics and environmental destruction are “convenient shiny arguments” that make them feel good about themselves when they virtue signal them on social media and then forget about them 5min later.
Curse me all you want, the world of today is of our collective making.
It’s all about scale, there aren’t billions of chess engine users.
Antoine’s argument is still very naive and short sighted.
Only because some corporations are linked to fascism, does not make the technology inherently fascist.
If these links are an issue, we should also all stop using Microsoft and Google, because they offer Isreael computing power, and thus every service is now supporting genocide. So if you are that user, all fine, enjoy an off-grid life. But don’t pretend to be better, if you still rely on those companies in the first place.
I agree that the corpos being linked to fascism doesn’t make the technology fascist, but plenty of people are switching from MS and Google for that among other reasons. Acting like any interaction with these companies is just as bad as going all in is completely incorrect. All small acts of resistance add up and are important, even if you can’t totally avoid a company that is causing harm. Taking a bus is not as harmful as driving a car just because they both use fossil fuels.
there are robust anti Microsoft and anti Google movements getting more and more mainstream over time. there are plenty of great alternatives to MS and Google software and services. Linux and FOSS as a whole is benefiting immensely from anti Microsoft sentiment right now. We can and should boycott these two terrible companies
“Avoiding fascist-supporting companies is inconvenient” is a poor excuse, especially when it’s so easy to degoogle compared to 10 years ago.
