Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Completely this.
As long as the code is good,. does it matter where it came from?
Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people.
I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.
Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass? And why would they defend a tool explicitly built to replace them? Not to mention how inefficient it is (energy and money-wise).
Genie is not going back into the bottle.
Genie requires a fuckton of food. If you don’t feed it, it will die.
we’ll be waiting in the grown ups room while you figure out how to answer the question “why?”
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.
You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.
What I find funny do the people who oppose llms for ethical.reasons also oppose every other tech they use for ethical reasons.
Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?
In their defense, some people just are fucksticks.
Sure, but if ‘fuckstick’ is your sole ‘argument’, you can’t exactly call foul when someone declines to engage with you for being childish.
Well, they were being truthful and children tend to be exceedingly honest. So yes, it was childish, in a way.
Children don’t typically express honesty with ‘fuckstick’. ‘Childish’ here is used to refer to the absence of capacity or ability to engage in constructive discussion. But feel free to keep painting ‘fuckstick’ in any shade you like. I personally prefer ‘Yo mama’ jokes when I lack the ability to win a particular argument.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.
Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.
the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there’s not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you’d be surprised by the amount of slave labour that’s used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it’s not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that’s not an issue with “AI”. i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.
“Everything is unethical therefore I don’t have to make ethical choices” is bad logic and morally wrong
you don’t understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn’t understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you’re using, is a flase argument because it doesn’t exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!
Ethics aren’t black and white but shades of grey. There are indeed more and less ethical choices to make within capitalism.
right, good luck voting fascism away with your wallet!
Have you seen this meme? That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
no, that would be me if i’d say we can’t move away from capitalism. i am a marxist leninist, i am very much in favour of ending this shit your people have imposed on the rest of mankind. the argument here is use or not use ai for ethical reason, this is what i oppose. it’s not ethical, it’s reactionary and it doesn’t produce a better outcome. i am in favour of a more ethical ai. this implies open local models, not using western models, and regulation and standardization.
Nah, that’s you.
thank you for being the literal personification of a westoid.
I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.
Short answer, yes.
Long answer: yes, because private property of the means of production is bad. And because AIs got where they are now by stealing content. And because most major AI-companies are in major with fascist and genocidal governments. And because they’re speedrunning environmental collapse.
Yes.
If a piece of art is “good” who cares where it came from? The “where it came from” is as integral to the “quality” of the art as the “art” itself.
This is a very “product” mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.
The take you’re giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.
Yeah but that’s art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.
I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having “ends” at all is valid and beyond reproach.
What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.
As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider “utilitarian” and what we don’t. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it’s facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.
My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?
Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.
However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn’t work, it’s useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.
You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don’t think open source developers should have to think about it. I’d rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.
That is so incredibly wrong that I don’t know where to even begin. Yes, they should think about it. We all should.
Open source developers do not have the power to enact change. AI needs regulation which must come from governments.
What a lame excuse for complicity.
One of the values of code is what it does. Just like one of the values of a chisel is its ability to perform the functions of a chisel.
Other values include fostering human connection, instilling a sense of beauty in the reader, prompting deeper contemplation on the part of the reader, etc.
When I read code I do so to understand what the author was thinking and feeling at the time of writing it. AI completely obfuscates this. It removes any merit of the code aside from what it does which, for me, is the code’s least interesting feature.
Prior to AI I could reasonably expect every piece of software I interacted with to have been made by a human, every piece of software could be interegated like a painting or a novel. Now I have to assume all code is tainted until proven otherwise which means all code is assumed to be largely worthless. At least, as valuable as a novel is as a paper weight.
In the span of a year we have gone from an abundance of hand crafted works of art to an ocean of worthless slop.
What code does is the least intetesting part of it for you?
Idk, AI use doesn’t automatically make something slop just like writing by hand doesn’t automatically make it good.
Honestly yes. In all but the most niche of software there are dozens if not hundreds of versions of the same application. I am awash in options. In an age where, for most small use cases, I can literally ask a chatbot to generate an app for my use case a code’s utility is even less valuable than it was before.
As to the distinction of AI = bad and Human = good; this is, again, presupposing utility as not only the primary but singular axis I’m supposed to judge code.
Like I’ve said elsewhere here. For me I judge code by a combination of its utility, it’s ability to foster community and the community it has fostered, the Inherit “beauty” of the code itself, the richness of the documentation, the degree to which the code exposes new ideas to me, and most of all I read the code, and use it, in order to understand the thoughts and feeling of the person who made it.
I judge code largely by the same axis by which I judge a painting or a novel. I don’t consume AI ‘art’ or AI ‘writing’, why would I consume AI ‘code’?
In the universe where the “where it came from” can’t affect the end quality, the question itself indeed becomes irrelevant. And in case of the Linux kernel it is indeed irrelevant, as the code will be reviewed, appraised and tested before releasing.
And yes, the utilitary mindset is more applicable towards code than it is to art. Unless we’re talking about stuff like ioccc, where the code itself is the form of art, code is just a mean, not the end.
Why is it more applicable to code than art?
You can see my other posts in this same thread but I think you are taking that claim as a given. If I’m judging two pieces of software, why should I only use utility to my needs as the axis upon which I judge them? Why is that ontologically the correct method of judgement?
Why shouldn’t I treat alignment with my values, the degree to which the code fostered a community that was pro-social, or the beauty of the code as the means by which I judge the code?
Because the main utility of Art is to be observed. The main utility of code is to be compiled into a piece of software.
I never said you shouldn’t. Just that it’s secondary to code’s functionality. Also, specifically in case of the Linux kernel, the community and its values stay the same. All that changed is a clause in the rules.
Again, and I brought up more details elsewhere in this thread. This is assuming utility as the principal axis. You highlighting art as having a utility "to be observed* is more of this neo-liberal hyper optimization psychology.
I am awash in projects that compile. Frankly, for most use cases, getting the code to compile is a pretty easy step. But all those other axis? Those are much tougher.
So, yes, “does it compile and run” is generally table stakes as I can’t interact much with the code without that step. However, comparing it to art, that is functionally the equivalent to “is it visible to a human somehow” as far as requirements to be considered art.
Because of this, the utility of code, that is “does it serve my needs”, is not the principal axis by which to judge it for me. It is just one of many axis’ that are used to judge.
This isn’t limited to code by the way. Every field, and every technology, gets this treatment. It is simply not enough to make a product that does a task. I’m looking for conviviality.
You see, it is the principled axis though. Let me paint an analogy: suppose, you’re very thirsty, but there’s no water to be found. You see chips, dried fruit, cakes, biscuits, but no water. Would you really care about how ethically all of those were sourced, how nice they are, or how much the cook loved to make them? If someone started to tell you all of this snacks’n’deserts lore while you were literally dying of thirst, you’d most probably become very irritated, because all of those beautiful snacks and desserts is not what you need right now. What you need is water, and hour by hour you’re starting to care less and less about how muddy it should be, or where it comes from.
What I’m saying is, when a certain niche is overflowing with various pieces, it might seem like utility is not primary, but the opposite becomes really apparent as soon as there’s nothing to fill in that said niche. The rest is just a privilege that we all have, thanks to the abundance of literally everything that we live in. I too have the privilege to avoid projects written in Python, simply because i have a personal preference against it, or to avoid shady vibe-coded slop. With linux kernel tho? I mean, if someone clones it, and does a better job at not letting bugs into production, while releasing at the same pace or quicker than the current kernel project does, i’ll switch to it too. Except i doubt somebody could compete with a team of seasoned vets, that know how to use their tools and can with ~95% accuracy tell which parts of code would break at a first glance. Until then, i’ll stay on vanilla linux kernel, because it does its job of keeping my pc functional, which i need to win some bread.
Your analogy adds a condition for need that my framework does not presuppose and, because of that, I feel it is a weak analogy.
My entire argument is that value is judged against a wide host of different axis. Do I have a literal deathly need for a drawing app to support Gaussian dithering? Like, will I die of that isn’t present? No. Obviously in a life or death situation we select the object which will most rapidly and most effectively meet our need. Though even under those circumstances there are limits a lá trolley problems.
On to your main point as to the value of non-utility features inside of an underserved niche. That really depends on the niche doesn’t it? If the niche is LoRa communication networks in disaster environments than perhaps I am more willing to tolerate something churned out by an LLM until something better comes along but if the niche is not human life preservation than it’s not dire enough to justify compromising on the other things I care about.
A more accurate anology that you might have asked me is "if you really wanted a croissant and you had the choice between a delicious croissant made with forced child labor, no croissant, or a pan é chocolat would you really not choose the croissant?
To which my response is “Yes, I would pick something else”.
And you continue to fail to see that I have never said otherwise. There is a certain logical leap between “this is the only factor that matters” and “this is objectively the main factor, but we have the luxury to not care about it because we live in a post-scarcity environment”. You can afford to not choose the croissant because you know there’s other food to choose from, and more over, that there are other croissants just like this one, but with no child labor inside.
There’s no such thing as “non-utility feature”. But there’s the order of importance of factors, which is, of course, subjective and highly-cotextual. If you personally value the fact that a given software was written without the use of LLMs, than its functionality, because you somehow deem it as “more moral”, you’re free to stay on the outdated kernel, or switch over to NetBSD. I guess that’s the part of our discussion where you explain to me why you think using LLMs in an opensource non-profit collaborative project with the given rule that the person who submits the code is still fully responsible for it and should be able to answer any technical question regarding it is wrong.