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
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.
Nobody forced me to adopt AI, and up until about a year ago I mostly ignored it. It “wasn’t ready for prime time” back then. Starting about a year ago, I saw the improvement curve and the potential and decided it was time for me to learn how to make the best of it. Starting about 8 months ago it really turned a corner in terms of productivity and usefulness, and that same increase in productivity is driving improvement in the AI tools themselves. I expect it to plateau, any day now, but so far it doesn’t seem like it has started - each new “frontier model” seems noticeably more capable / useful than the one before. Sometimes that’s more a matter of specialization than general overall capabilities, but that’s O.K. too - we don’t need one model to serve all purposes, that’s the whole M.o.E. premise…
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.
all the programmers pushing AI on me like Crypto Bros while their programs work worse are smart, well intentioned people?
Sorry, if you just think back to the 1990s, you’re describing the Microsoft shitshow, pushing “updates” that make things worse not better, pushing standard products that aren’t as good as the products that were avaialble years earlier. Lately I’ve been getting the same vibe out of Canonical / Ubuntu.
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.
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.
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. 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.
-
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. https://deadsimpletech.com/blog/no-such-thing-as-just-a-tool
-
99% of LLM’s (the only virtually everyone use) are trained on copyrighted code that are incompatible with GPL licensed projects. LLM’s have a 3 to 10% 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 exploration the GPL normally grants. https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html
i dont get it; not paying for a subscription should actually discourage them from building new data centres because they’re turning a net loss by you doing that. it’s also, very freakin clear, that AI in its current state is not profitable.
Virtually the entire industry is not profitable, but that current reality does not affect the massive investment money they continue to receive, as they are pitching the concept to investors that many of the free users will eventually become paying users, and that their overall userbase will continue to expand, with projections of huge profits a decade from now.
For investors, the lack of profits now is not a blaring alarm bell, because Amazon also operated without a profit for many years by undercutting their competition until the competition failed, then Amazon was able to be a monopoly and jack up their prices.
A similar thing is happening with AI companies, where the prices they are currently charging is putting them at a net loss, but each one is hoping to out survive the other so that some day they can be a semi or total monopoly, and jack the prices up on a userbase that has become totally dependent on them to do their jobs.
-
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.
All those things would happen with or without AI though.
- There are always excuses to layoff
- Prices will always go up
- Propaganda has existed for millenia
- Environemntal problems existed long before LLMs
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.
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.
The real problem with “bad” AI code is that it compiles, without errors or warnings. It passes all the unit tests. It passes all the integration tests. At least it will if you tell it to keep iterating until it does. Some days that may be a spaghetti mess, some days that’s all you need.
If you develop a modular architecture with sufficiently fine grained modules, the spaghetti comes in managable portions.
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.
So Debian, what are you going to do now?
Edit: nm, they allow LLM written code now.
Well it’s not that this shit CAN’T be useful, it’s that it’s being pushed at people heavily in ways that aren’t.
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.
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.
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.
It’s interesting to see AI being used for something as practical as debugging a Linux issue. I think the bigger question is how much developers can rely on AI without losing their understanding of the underlying code. AI can clearly speed things up, but human review still seems essential.
They should ask for a refund
This will also be quite the test for the Lemmy slopwarriors
- 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.
Guess it’s finally time to go all in on FreeBSD
If you really think that FreeBSD whose developers often use Macs on desktop is any different, think again. Maybe OpenBSD but certainly not FreeBSD.
why not go full linux nutter and create TempleOS 2.0 ?
only hand made code that you yourself wrote, it’s the only way to be sure!
I daily drive OpenBSD, I find it much better than my experience with FreeBSD. OpenBSD I feel has better wifi support, better VM support, and I found more of my devices worked on OpenBSD as opposed to FreeBSD (pair of USB Headphones I had just absolutely WOULD NOT work on FreeBSD, on OpenBSD it wasn’t an issue)
That being said OpenBSD’s policy on AI isn’t exactly clear yet. NetBSD however has straight up said no to AI.
The BSD’s are good, they’ve come a long way, but you can’t go into them thinking you’ll get a similar Linux up to date experience. the BSD’s are still a few years behind but if you’re going to try and make a switch I would suggest NetBSD or OpenBSD over FreeBSD. I might give NetBSD another go as I think I gave up on it last time because the install process annoyed me.
the BSD’s are still a few years behind
As long as many BSD developers (especial at FreeBSD, I think it’s a lesser degree with Net and Open) are Mac users who actively reject using any FOSS BSD on desktops/notebooks and only care about contributing regarding server stuff, this won’t change.
why not a genuine piece of pre-AI coding art like Windows Vista, Windows ME or the absolute pinacle of software: Slackware 9.1 before they switched to the awful X.org server from the beautiful XFree86?
Fuck that, I’m going back to DOS.
FreeDOS actually does have an anti AI policy, at least when it comes to code commits: https://www.freedos.org/about/ai/ So you might be onto something here!
Finally!
I’m going back to AmigaDOS.
it’s the only way to be pure!
FreeBSD is also slopped, sadly. https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-ai-policy-or-such.100101/
Maybe get an M2-series Mac and go all-in on Asahi Linux?
Or live the 90s dream with Haiku OS (they just released beta 6)?
The “never ai” list is getting pretty short
Maybe get an M2-series Mac and go all-in on Asahi Linux?
That’s still Linux with Torvalds-approved LLM generated code. If you care about avoiding LLM code, all Linux is now poisoned.
If you care about avoiding LLM code, all Linux is now poisoned.
How do you figure that?
Also, Torvalds isn’t reviewing every PR sitting there like, “yes how delicious this AI generated code is! I approve!” Believe it or not, tens of thousands of people run the Linux foundation project, not just him.
And let’s keep our heads squarely on our necks here, and remember what Torvalds actually said:
How do you figure that?
It’s literally spelled out in the submitted article as well as https://www.xda-developers.com/linus-torvalds-will-loudly-ignore-anyone-criticising-ai-code-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/ which is prominently linked from that article. Read first, comment later, don’t downvote others just because you are wrong.
That just explains Torval’s attitude, which I just explained to you first (by the way) but it doesn’t explain your statement that “all of Linux is now poisoned“.
That’s gonna require a substantial amount more proof than a philosophical position taken by Linus Torvalds
(to be clear: I’m pretty anti AI myself, and I don’t agree with Torvalds position, and I’m definitely not arguing in Support of it)
That’s gonna require a substantial amount more proof than a philosophical position taken by Linus Torvalds
“Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug” <-- literally spelled out in the headline.
1600 commits contain the word “claude” alone: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atorvalds%2Flinux+claude&type=commits
It’s so easy to find out, yet you insist that you are right. Hilarious.
The only thing that’s “hilarious“ here is how you’ve interpreted one thing to fit into your perception of another.
On the other hand, I find it rather sad, especially how, in a single sentence, you seem to see several things that just… aren’t there….
And I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but you’re making it very badly.
We need to finish Hurd.
We
Patches welcome
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?
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.
In terms of murder, not every person is caught. But, enough of them are to deter the crime.
In terms of “no AI” enforcement, it’s not even a matter of perfection. It’s not possible to enforce except for the dumbest attempts, especially without also using AI to detect it. And if that enforcement comes about, then the evasion starts, and it’s hidden even further.
So how would one enforce this?
It is not that it is very difficult, it is impossible.
“it’s impossible to ensure that no one pisses in the pool, therefore we’re allowing pissing into the pool now”
“we can’t 100% enforce that studenst don’t cheat on exams, so it’s not worth to take a stand against cheating”
Provenance has never been something you can guarantee with code in an open contribution model (which is not the only way of governing an open source project). For all you know the code could be copy and pasted from a proprietary codebase, or be the product of third party who’s work is being plagiarised by the submitter. A software project is ultimately a community and is build on trust and faith that people are acting in good faith. The kind of person who would deliberately (and gleefully as I’ve seen in some social media posts) go into a community and violate its stated values and standards, no matter how arbitrary and illegitimate they feel those are, has bigger character flaws to worry about than their reliance on stochastic parrots to write code.
‘No AI’ rules are ultimately about fostering certain community values and norms than guaranteeing no LLM code makes it in.
The sloppers are literally outing themselves, it’s not rocket science.
He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs. They can be powerful tools in the right hands, and he wouldn’t submit that code if he couldn’t take responsibility for it. The bullshit OpenAI ,Anthropic et al are pulling is not synonymous with the technology itself, which will survive those asshats.
I’m pretty sure there were people like you thinking about IDEs the same way.
Or using something else than vim for editing files.
Or replacing punch cards.
He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs.
And we’re saying we should ban people like that. And they made the insane claim that it wasn’t possible.
It isn’t possible. If you get society at a level if repressiveness that you want to have (you know who else only thinks in black and white terms?) they will simply not disclose it, leaving you with nothing to go on besides witch hunts like in the dark ages.
They are disclosing it, dumbass. We’re choosing to do nothing while they disclose it. If they are forced into hiding, good, that is what will make me happy, and since you don’t think it will make a difference then you should be fine with it too, no? The fact that you sloppers feel the need to argue is proof that it would be effective.
Reported for the personal insult btw, this is not needed in any way or form.
Yes, they are disclosing it, and that’s a good thing for you! If you want to avoid products that use LLMs in their code, being informed is key. Increasing pressure on coders who are also under pressure to provide a service - especially if it is fucking unpaid like most FOSS projects - will only mean that they don’t disclose it anymore, because if they can increase their output (for instance by running unit tests or scan for issues) in the limited time they can provide, they will take that edge, people like you be damned. It’s only human.
Your way will only lead into a future where most coders use LLMs, and you are in the dark about it, leaving you without the option to choose.
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 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.
It’s called “copyleft” for a reason.
The reason is that it’s based in copyright law but uses it for the community instead of the individual. Without copyright, copyleft has no power.
I have many problems with copyright as it’s currently implemented, but with copyleft it usefully creates a social contract: if you want to be involved for the benefits, you must also uphold the rule of contributing back.
Conversely it might already be copywritten because the originality of the output work belongs to the author of the training data.
“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.
Yes, debugging with an LLM is absolutely as bad as murder. Probably worse! \s
Not even remotely what I suggested.
They can only make fallacies to defend themselves.
LLM code can cause deaths (i.e. in hospital software), or otherwise great human or material loses (i.e., bank software or a shelter’s software), or even cultural loses (it actually does it right now, but you can also think about i.e. a museum software).
You can enforce consequences for murder. You can investigate and differentiate a murder from an accidental death. Don’t be disingenuous.
A death is a death.
I can quote from memory a case in my country, in the 80’s, where a man assaulted a couple, killed the woman and was about to kill the man.
The killer got tackled and beat to death by the widower. The sole survivor was sent to trial for murder regardless being under mortal peril.
Got acquited on the appeal. First instance deemed it an excessive act, regardless self defence.
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 disagree completely, for example Linus here has demonstrated he’s a slopper so we could easily remove him from any position to contribute to other projects. Bam. Enforced.
Do you really think that Torvalds would submit code that is not up to spec? He’s the most anal person regarding quality of code i know of - removing him from a project would not be a positive thing. He actually embodies the mentality of taking responsibility for code you provide; I am pretty sure he would stop coding for OSS projects before betraying that concept. We need more coders like him that take pride and responsibility for their code, not put up artifical barriers because of the tools someone uses.
Yeah well Hulk Hogan seemed cool in the 90s, but people change. Sloppers produce slop at the cost of quality, at the cost of the environment, at the cost of freedom, and at the cost of the economy: they deserve no credibility.
All the costs you name are attached to OpenAI/Anthropic/Nvidia/Microsoft, not the technology. You can run local models, and noone except Sam Altman and Dario Amodei need that amount of datacenters, because if they stop building, these guys are finished. Instead of bashing the technology which has a lot of uses that don’t need the power of a small city, go bash the fucking end times capitalists in the US which are responsible for that shit.
The local models still burn power and consume training to produce slop, a negative is a negative, and adoption of the technology of OpenAI/Anthropic/Nvidia/Microsoft/ The Chinese Dictatorship is a bad look even if you’re only contributing to optics.
AI code ban makes as much sense as code written in IDE ban. That’s why it is impossible to enforce. It makes no sense.
You’re getting a lot of down votes not for being wrong, but for being right.
No, he gets them for being wrong.
As another person stated in another comment, that’s a false equivalence fallacy, but not only that, it’s a false dilemma fallacy, and a strawman fallacy.
It’s like trying to prove an author didn’t use a ghostwriter. You might be able to find some clues, but the smaller the sample and the more cleanup the author did, the less chance there is to detect it.
Now what if they’re using AI for debugging? Code from the AI may not even make it into the project, but that doesn’t mean AI wasn’t used. So how do you enforce a “no AI” policy in that scenario?
If there’s no practical way to enforce a rule or tell if it has been broken, it’s a pointless rule. Better programmers than me have settled on the policy of “If you track in shit on your shoes, you will be the one cleaning it up, and may well be told to not come back if you do.” Make people responsible for the code they submit, and if they can’t do it right, however they do it, don’t merge their code and kick them out.
Me when I’m a logical fallacy
I’m very critical of AI, but complete bans on AI use are, at the moment, pretty much unenforcable. Not hard to enforce, not impossible to enforce 100%, impossible to enforce. There currently is no reliable way to verify if and how much someone used AI, except maybe if you monitor people’s systems.
Obviously, if someone who has no clue about coding uses it to write the entire code, you notice. But that’s simply not how most coders use AI…
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.
That’s… the joke. The original proposition was that AI code bans can’t be enforced, a thought which I was leading ad absurdum.
Fuck off with these fake AI bubble pumping stories. fake ass grifters reading the same script wherever you go (“Im a mathamatician and IM SCARED” lol)
It’s all horse shit.
Sorry guys but your AI powered sex doll is going in the chipper along with her unpublished Unified Field theory.
If the model is adequately FOSS, i.e. open weights, and can run on a single consumer GPU (or NPU), and the “author” (quotations because I’m personally undecided if one can claim code generated by an aforementioned model is theirs) understands it, then I really don’t see what the problem is…
Personally I have nothing against SLMs/LLMs as a technologically, to me my grievances against ChatGPT or Claude are mostly about their environmental impacts and selling us back our own art, also keeping knowledge behind a for-profit black-box - if those aren’t appropriate for a specific model, then I say using that model is fair, and good for productivity.
I’d take a model whose training data is open source and legitimately obtained. The only ones I know about are Apertus and OLMo, and they aren’t really competitive.
Unfortunately not yet, no, true FOSS models are likely many years away, but I would argue that that follows typical FOSS lifecycles. Emerging technology is typically outperformed by proprietary endeavors, which creates an audience, and then that audience undertakes a FOSS implementation that initially underperforms, then just about competes, then eventually overtakes (i.e, GNU/Linux).
The problem with open weight models is that they are still hard to deploy. For DeepSeek for example you require NVIDIA HGX B200, these things are expensive.
If you are really using those things for work, a 32GB VRAM Blackwell currently costs around 3800-4000€. My own experience with local models on my 5070/12GB with 64GB DDR4 has shown me:
- I can run a Qwen 3.8 35b Q_8 quant (BF16 is a tad too large) using CPU offloading, while still reaching acceptable speeds for private use.
- Ternary Models are a game changer. Built to be used in edge computing, Bonsai-27B-Ternary from Prism ML runs completely on my GPU (using ca. 10GB of my 12GB VRAM incl. MMProj, 9 when disabling vision) and even leaves enough VRAM to run subagents (when killing my plasmashell lol -but i tend to offload these to the CPU in favor of increasing the context of the main model). currently you have to install a costum fork of llama.cpp to run ternary models, but the needed changes will be applied upstream soon. (There is a Bonsai quant which aims to run on iPhones with below 6GB VRAM footprint - the limit of what Ios currently allows)
If this scales linear, it would mean that the 32 GB of a smallish Blackwell would be enough to run Ternary models with around 70B parameters plus a ton of context window without breaking a sweat.
These are strange times. I absolutely love the technology and the advances, and i fucking hate the companies pusting these technologies.
Altman, Amodei, Musk, Nadella, Huang and all of the othe AI evangelists can go choke on a bag of dicks in my opinion. This technology never should have been this divisive, it should have just become another tool in humanities toolbox. I fear that these people have tainted the general populations outlook on this tech for a very long time.
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?
Initially sent to debian-private, shared here because I want the consequences of Debian fully embracing fascist-backed technology to be known.
wow what a nutter, reckon he’s probably on lemmy somewhere right now calling someone who uses mac osx a nazi
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.
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’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.
Maybe you should fully read what you’re looking at before posting next time. I’m not the person you were whining to originally.
It’s a bad look when you can’t even tell who it is you’re talking to. Really makes it seem like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
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.
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.
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.
“Ai is literally Hitler”
-fediverse user, 2026
I hope you’re joking, but I did explicitly state that was not my intention.
Although that’s basically true…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well it’s about time those slackers caught up. And all they needed was a slop machine.
No, pragmatically speaking, LLMs and in general AI will only make code worse each day.
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.
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.
It’s all about scale, there aren’t billions of chess engine users.
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.
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!
The day when it doesn’t crush the environment
Why should we indulge your hypothetical? They’re actively building fossil fuel powered data centers so it’s not even moving in that direction.
And most tech literate people that are anti-genAI would also prefer if it didn’t completely usurp the term AI or that everything historically called ML got also got sucked in. You’re acting like anti people made that happen but it was the boosters and now AI=chatgpt is in the common lexicon. Nitpicking their language when you obviously know damn well what they mean is just silly.
Especially their own. Every single day, the backlash looks more like garden-variety anti-intellectualism to me.
Yeah, ethical, environmental, legal and fuck the consumer memory questions aside.
That’s every corp and government in existence.
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.
Conservatives.
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.
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.
