You are probably also one of those insane ideologues that refuse to hammer in a screw for some reason, although you know how well that hammer worked on nails… 😂

Here you go, a little praxeological explanation of why people are so “dumb”, which is much better than saying they are idiots, at least when it comes to actually trying to better the world, when it comes to hope ;)

Yeah, sounds right… until you broaden your horizon and realize that this is not US exclusive.

There are many countries that actually have non-neoliberal parties to chose from. And guess what… those also don’t get enough votes to be more than a minor factor in government coalitions. Because the reality is: many people are really idiots (not their fault often given the state of education but still…) and fall for the same right-wing screaming again and again (and yes it is exactly the same - the right only has one single playbook and they all constantly copy from each other), no matter if there is actually a voice of reason to listen to instead.

It’s a tool, use it where it works and don’t where it doesn’t.

But that doesn’t work with the people creating AI as they are totally dependent on the believe that AI can do absolutely everything (and an artificial general intelligence is just moments away…) to justify they insane investments. So they will make up a million stupid narratives why some people are “actually” not using AI as it obviously can’t be because of AI shortcomings…

The super-rich and corporations want that

The real problem is that because the super-rich want it the majority is also on board because they are mostly brain-dead and will parrot every shit media pours into their empty heads.

Which again leads to: the people want Trump. Why they want him is a completely different topic. But the fact does not go away just because you don’t want it to be true.

Is it really an escalation from the already established case of ‘wanting to nuke a hurricane’?

I like Bing search results…

They are the perfect comic relief between the serious results on my SearXNG page.

No, I just reject the notion that the ongoing discussion about AI use in software production is a moral/ethical one. That’s a bullshit narrative to actually discredit all the good reasons against AI by making up a mostly fictional “but it’s just ideology”-argument.

Yes actions include moral choices. But actions that are stupid and make no sense at all don’t need to be discussed in terms of is it ethically okay to do it, because that’s not the interesting point there.

I won’t discuss about the moral choice of hitting my thumb with a hammer, even less to when I tried hammering in a screw like a moron. So I will also not discuss imaginary topics of ethical use of AI in coding. Because it’s bullshit. It produces low quality slob. It’s a scam trying to tell people with no clue about programmning that they can totally do it, too, while trying to gas-light programmers into believing that they really, really need to use that tool for coding or be left behind. Using AI for coding because you already used it for debugging tasks is not an ethical discussion. Just like using a hammer for a screw because you already hammered in nails is not one. It’s a discussion about what AI CAN do and what it CAN’T. Discussions if you SHOULD use AI for a specific task have to happen AFTER you determined if it makes sense first place. And to return the hammer analogy a third time (it’s a magic number after all…): If someone would try to argue that we need to discuss the ethics of hammering in a screw because it already worked with a nail, would you agree that all actions have ethical implications that need to be considered or would you dismiss him because the ethical discussion is not relevant. I did the latter in my comment.

Again: If using AI for coding for real world purposes (and I don’t talk about non-technical people building their low quality app here… that’s mostly a gimmick) was viable, sure… use it. Or let’s start an ethics discussion then. That’s fine with me, too.

But don’t pretend that the actual discussion right know, mainly lead by clueless people evaluating a new gimmick with very little understanding of its actual capabilities (and limits) and CEOs willing to believe in any snake oil if it promises to help them get rid of those obnoxious workers demanding pay (it won’t - every actual fact and number tells us that AI is in fact more expensive, even before figuring in the human employees also needed to hold the leash) is one about ethical use in coding. It isn’t. It’s about a discussion between those that use AI for the things it can do and avoid it where it’s useless and those that somehow have found their new religion and saviour and try to make everything about a) those in tech that use AI because they obviously have seen the light and converted and b) those still left in the dark and fighting their new god for made up moral or other reasons.

That’s a fairy tale completely ignoring the third group: technical people that use AI only and exactly where it makes sense. A fairy tale mostly pushed by a few people behind AI development because they already sunk such insane sums into it that they need to believe (and make you believe) that an (human level or more) artificial general intelligence is just around the corner. Just think about it: there people are actually taking about the equivalent of creating new life (new artificial conciousness) to justify their insane investments. And we should talk about the ethical implications of using AI in coding? How is that not a distraction?

Btw… now that I thought about it (and spelled some of it out) I want to walk back to my earlier statement. If AI is actually able to do soon™ what the morons behind it are proposing, that’s indeed the moment to start an ethics discussion. A very complicated one about definitions of conciousness and life… good thing that this will not actually happen.

Sorry but no. Contrary to what some activist types want you to believe it’s not about actual ethical use when we are talking about software.

It’s about LLMs being a tool that should be used where it’s the proper and efficient tool for the job (see: here) and that should definitely not be used where it isn’t the proper tool (vibe coded bullshit) just because some PR guy told you that this tool is your shiny new hammer and everything is a nail now.

When LLMs can produce proper reviewable code use them ffs… alas, they can’t in any case complex enough to actually justify their use.

No, there is an actual explanation.

Telescopes cause near-earth asteroids. Just like tax audits cause tax fraud or covid tests caused case numbers.

Thanks for reminding me. I spend far to long trying to remember where that picture was from.

(Also: setting sails for the high seas…)

It’s trivial to put up websites that can work independently from the media controlled by the 1%.

And then nobody but a few selected people ever see them because there is also the non-trivial part: actual media reach

Sure you can put the website up, but the 1% still control all the mechanisms used to bring it to the attention of most people.

and the rest are too few to matter.

Or they are the actual majority nicely brain-bleached to believe that they are alone by complicit media.

No, it just looks like satire (or alternatively pure insanity) to anyone still having a working brain cell.

And nobody in r/pics found those totally natural ways to hold signs suspicious? 🥱

A mandatory [AI] tag? Sure.

A [NOT AI] tag? No, that’s the default. Why normalise AI bullshit even further?