You must log in or register to comment.
Remember when everybody was making “smart” toasters and fridges and shit with cameras or WiFi for absolutely no reason.
This is that all over again.
Nobody needs “AI” in their water kettles, dryers, or dildos.
But if I don’t have a toilet AI how will I remember what I had to eat the other day for less than $4.99/mo?
I gave you the up vote because it’s a good take, but this really has nothing to do with the article, so I can tell that you and a bunch of your 58 up voters didn’t read it
I did read it, and my comment is exactly referencing the attitude of the author which is “It’s good enough, so you should use it”. I disagree, and say it’s another dumbass shortcut to cash grab on a less than stellar ecosystem and product. It’s training wheels for failure.
“This is just plain fuckin’ stupid. Your neighbor gets a dildo that plays ‘O Come, All Ye Faithful’ and you wanna get one too!”
This is a pretty good take imo
Like AI, IoT is an important and lasting technology
But too many businesses and products jumped on a misguided bandwagon to pull stupid uniformed VC money
Developers all love to preen about code. They worry LLMs lower the “ceiling” for quality. Maybe. But they also raise the “floor”.
And this is how the human element of this industry dies. This dev is the last of a dying breed, the senior dev. He’s also loading more bullets into the gun that’s pointed at the heart of the role that got him to where he is in the first place.
You don’t get to become a junior dev if that role is occupied by AI and you don’t get to ever ascend to senior dev unless you start as a junior dev.
For as analytical this person seems to be, he has a massive blindspot related to the path he himself treaded to get where he is. He’s pulling the ladder up behind him and condemning the people on the path behind to finding another way or giving up entirely.
AI is brain rot. It’s actively and aggressively atrophying humanity’s ability to reason and problem solve.
If this dev doesn’t do it, the next one will
This dev is analytical enough to understand basic incentive modeling and game theory. Capitalism is a race to the bottom no less now than it always was.
Developers are resentful toward AI for the same reason they resented blockchain–it becomes a buzz word that every middle manager is convinced will improve productivity, and it’s forced whether it’s actually helpful or not.
I work on safety-critical code. AI is useless here, but we have to “use” it to appease clueless shareholders.
What would happen if you collectively put your foot down on zero “AI code” to management, with such critical applications?
I’m a senior with a good boss, I pretty much just ignore it. And fortunately, at least in my company, most people have done that (especially with the safety critical stuff). But management still has a way of making your life miserable when you stand your ground on this kind of thing, so it’s also common to just tell them some bullshit and go about your job.
“AI” is not the new NFT because “AI” doesn’t even exist. It’s a far bigger and far worse grift. Sure, some dummies wasted their money on jpgs of monkeys. But nobody used NFTs to murder palestinian kids, spy on society, steal our data, outlaw regulation, etc. No amount of shitty generated code will redeem that. Ofc this delusional myopic article has nothing to say about this.
“AI” is a far worse grift than NFTs.
Replace AI with Excel in your argument and repeat it again. Do you see how silly you sound?
Copilot in Code is hell. It pops code suggestions almost after every keystroke. Idiotic suggestions mostly.
You can configure that I think? (The every keystroke, not the stupidity)
Already showing signs of spreading.
- Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort do not equal reduced critical thinking; efficiency isn’t cognitive decline.
- The study relies on subjective perception, not objective performance or longitudinal data.
- Trust in AI may reflect appropriate tool use, not overreliance or diminished judgment.
- Users often shift critical thinking to higher-level tasks like verifying and editing, not abandoning it.
- Routine task delegation is intentional and rational, not evidence of skill loss.
- The paper describes perceptions, but overstates risks without proving causation.
The issue with AI is not that it’s not an impressive technology, it’s that it’s built on stolen data and is incredibly wasteful of resources. It’s a lot like cars in that regard, sure it solves some problems and is more convenient than the alternatives, but its harmful externalities vastly outweigh the benefits.
LLMs are amazing because they steal the amazing work of humans. Encyclopedias, scientific papers, open source projects, fiction, news, etc. Every time the LLM gets something right, it’s because a human figured it out, their work was published, and some company scraped it without permission. Yet it’s the LLM that gets the credit and not the person. Their very existence is unjust because they profit off humanity’s collective labour and give nothing in return.
No matter how good the technology is, if it’s made through unethical means, it doesn’t deserve to exist. You’re not entitled to AI more than content creators are entitled to their intellectual property.
It’s built on publicly available data, the same way that humans learn, by reading and observing what is accessible. Many are also now trained on licensed, opt-in and synthetic data.
They don’t erase credit they amplify access to human ideas.
Training consumes energy, but its ongoing usage to query is vastly cheaper to query than most industrial processes. You’re assuming it cannot reduce our energy usage by improving efficiency and removing manual labour.
“If something is made unethically, it shouldn’t exist”
By that logic, nearly all modern technology (from smartphones to pharmaceuticals) would be invalidated.
And fyi I am an anarchist and do not think intellectual property is a valid thing to start with.
I think you’re also underestimating the benefits cars have ushered, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone serious that can show that the harm has ‘outweighed their benefits’
