Not using world-changing technology because some people are using it harmfully is wild. Expanding it to people just making art (/entertainment...) that you don't like is just confusing.

Obviously I relate to the anxiety that made this man put up at least 3 mentions of how much he hates AI per page site-wide and to finish this draft before the actual site, but I can't help but see it as an unhealthy coping mechanism.

It's a shame cause this is an origami-themed freelance web developer who believes strongly in labeling natural vs. artificial prose, which couldn't be more up my alley if he tried! Shame the world is like this.

Just for clarity, in case anyone else doesn't see it -- I'll just take one paragraph:

  Criticism of AI has led to harassment.

Perceived support of AI has led to molotovs and bullet-riddled doors.

  AI has been used to publish hit pieces.

Computers have been used to publish hit pieces.

  Generative AI is used openly to generate sexual abuse material.

Ditto, just with a much more serious crime. This one is actually a lot easier now and we need new laws for sure, but plugging your ears to the future will not speed those laws up in any way, no matter how indirect.

  AI chatbots have encouraged vulnerable people to commit suicide.

Again, a serious, new twist on existing problems with suicide prevention. But A) it's far from a foregone conclusion that it's a net negative on suicide rates given that there's tons of positive anecdotes too, B) refusing to use claude code is not going to help devise legal, social, and technological solutions to that problem, and C) this is so clearly post-hoc reasoning.

For example: where's the "Social Policy", given that social media is a proven threat in this sense?

*EDIT:* And it's the guy who tried to make his own text editor after lamenting that Zed wasn't enough like Sublime?? Well, I guess it's nice to know I have an inverse doppleganger out there...

▲ almostdeadguy 8 hours ago | parent [-]

If this technology really is world-changing, you aren't going to be using it for long anyways.

▲

verdverm 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Electricity was world-changing, do we consider ourselves to be using it? Why is there this presupposition with LLMs? Are we just taking the "ai" leaders for their word? From what I can see, the tech we have today is not up to to the task of replacement and capability improvements (not benchmark) seem to be decelerating.

▲

almostdeadguy 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Electricity was world-changing, do we consider ourselves to be using it?

We do, but craft workers in the industrial revolution did lose their jobs, and at the pace AI is developing I don't see any reason to believe that professional workers will not eventually have their jobs threatened.

> Why is there this presupposition with LLMs? Are we just taking the "ai" leaders for their word?

No, I don't think we are. And let me be clear: I was very skeptical about this until recently. I think the models are objectively capable of doing a lot of the job of software engineers now, and increasingly engineers are being pressured to not only use them, but to take themselves out of the loop. There is a reason the conversation of "should we read the code" has been raised in public discourse and engineering talks now. That should concern everyone.

> From what I can see, the tech we have today is not up to to the task of replacement and capability improvements (not benchmark) seem to be decelerating.

I am not seeing that: https://metr.org/time-horizons/

And I think if things continue as they have, we are eventually going to see the price of software decline and widespread layoffs soon to follow.

	▲	verdverm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Jobs were not just lost during the industrial revolution, how many new tasks and jobs were created? (hint, it was more than were lost) If someone is telling you to not be in the loop, they are not aware of the capability ceiling of agents and llms. Progress appears to be slowing the last few months, people are not finding Opus 5 to be that much better than 4.8, less wow effect these days. To assume that Ai will lead to mass layoffs is to predict an uncertain future. I'm not worried about it this after years of using these LLMs and agents. There was a capability point reached late last year, the improvements since are minor by comparison. I've had sufficient interactions with others at work (using Ai on code I wrote) to know they are not up to the task. Their attention is too narrow, their fixes locally optimal. They still make stuff up all the time just to be pleasing.