Linus clearly meant that the tech is useful, and based on his history he probably meant for debugging more than anything else. And he’s absolutely right, there have been lots of vulnerabilities found by the thing. He didn’t say generated code is great, or that no human review is needed, or how we can adapt to incorporate gen ai in our workflows, etc. He only said it’s a useful tool, and that he doesn’t care about the ethics behind it (which is dumb, but we shouldn’t be surprised, especially if people are trying to push him into a direction, he’ll lash out and pick whatever is pragmatic in his view).
The ethics are a major concern and if you dismiss that, you are a moron. AI wasnt born out of good will, it was born out of a desire for profit. Until it’s energy efficient and the models are built ethically, it’s a no-brainer to deny its use. Once them concerns are addressed then we can start the conversation about the pros and cons of dealing with slop.
Well… I’m quite on the fence about AI, after being against it for a while.
Your point stands. Current AI use is terrible: both the ecological disaster and mass theft they present are not small issues.
Yet these aren’t a fault of the tech itself. They’re the fault of the companies doing said theft, and the governments either silently or openly ebracing said theft. And economic bubble fueling the theft and the unprecedented rate of datacenters popping up.
I like to compare AI to photography. Both are/were revolutionary. Both killed jobs. Both raised copyright issues. Yet photography today is an integral part of life. And I’m afraid LLM chatbots will be as well in ad few as 15 years.
There’s no stopping technological progress, even when it’s actively blocked - let alone when governments feed billions into it and take a blind eye to all its issues.
So the case isn’t as clear cut. You can admit defeat now, or you can wait a bit. You can be the sole hermit not using it in a world which does. Which is a personal choice for everyone. The only thing to ask is: is it the right one for an open source project?
Rejecting “known unethical” tools does seem like a sensible approach though. Either make your own, use a known-good one or do things the old fashioned way. No leaded gas in our vicinity allowed.
Photography isnt dangerous, it’s a form of art, capturing something that is real and tangible.
AI is fabricating something that isnt real, using works that were real. It’s dangerous, it’s not art. The only people who put time into is productions are the ones it stole from.
While I get what you are trying to say, it’s a terrible comparison. AI is already causing a lot of harm to humanity and will continue to do so. We should reject it for as long as we can, hopefully forever. If it does stay, it should be heavily, heavily regulated.
It’s a no-brainer guys. Ban that shit.
Eh, if the kernel (Linus himself) hasn’t banned it, maybe it isn’t a no brainer.
Nope, its still a no-brainer. Linus is just being a moron.
Linus clearly meant that the tech is useful, and based on his history he probably meant for debugging more than anything else. And he’s absolutely right, there have been lots of vulnerabilities found by the thing. He didn’t say generated code is great, or that no human review is needed, or how we can adapt to incorporate gen ai in our workflows, etc. He only said it’s a useful tool, and that he doesn’t care about the ethics behind it (which is dumb, but we shouldn’t be surprised, especially if people are trying to push him into a direction, he’ll lash out and pick whatever is pragmatic in his view).
The ethics are a major concern and if you dismiss that, you are a moron. AI wasnt born out of good will, it was born out of a desire for profit. Until it’s energy efficient and the models are built ethically, it’s a no-brainer to deny its use. Once them concerns are addressed then we can start the conversation about the pros and cons of dealing with slop.
Well… I’m quite on the fence about AI, after being against it for a while.
Your point stands. Current AI use is terrible: both the ecological disaster and mass theft they present are not small issues.
Yet these aren’t a fault of the tech itself. They’re the fault of the companies doing said theft, and the governments either silently or openly ebracing said theft. And economic bubble fueling the theft and the unprecedented rate of datacenters popping up.
I like to compare AI to photography. Both are/were revolutionary. Both killed jobs. Both raised copyright issues. Yet photography today is an integral part of life. And I’m afraid LLM chatbots will be as well in ad few as 15 years.
There’s no stopping technological progress, even when it’s actively blocked - let alone when governments feed billions into it and take a blind eye to all its issues.
So the case isn’t as clear cut. You can admit defeat now, or you can wait a bit. You can be the sole hermit not using it in a world which does. Which is a personal choice for everyone. The only thing to ask is: is it the right one for an open source project?
Rejecting “known unethical” tools does seem like a sensible approach though. Either make your own, use a known-good one or do things the old fashioned way. No leaded gas in our vicinity allowed.
Photography isnt dangerous, it’s a form of art, capturing something that is real and tangible.
AI is fabricating something that isnt real, using works that were real. It’s dangerous, it’s not art. The only people who put time into is productions are the ones it stole from.
While I get what you are trying to say, it’s a terrible comparison. AI is already causing a lot of harm to humanity and will continue to do so. We should reject it for as long as we can, hopefully forever. If it does stay, it should be heavily, heavily regulated.
I’m completely with you there