283
GrapheneOS defends use of AI for coding (grapheneos.social)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
271 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.

We do not understand where you're coming from or why you're so incredibly angry with us. It's not justified and does not make sense.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 79 points 1 month ago (14 children)

I am sure I will be down voted on Lemmy for this but using AI for development by a team who is already experienced in development of the product they are working on is not a moral failing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    My personal experience but the people who blindly bitch about AI are, quite frankly, idiots.

    I use AI daily for work it's an extremely helpful tool as you stated. I still have concerns with it.

    The difference is I understand human nature and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. We need governance and standards and it needs to be a utility just like hydro, water and The Internet. There also needs to be a global UBI yesterday.

    What people are bitching about with AI amount to the lack of control we the people have over it.

    I'm surprised you haven't been downvoted but I bet I will for calling a spade a spade in these people so rigidly opposed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    I don't think anyone is "blindly bitching". I think people have understandable concerns regarding its development, use, and proliferation.

    The other idea that it needs to be a utility is straight from the wet dreams of every AI company. Realistically, the average person has little use for AI and it's much more likely to be a detriment to them than otherwise. I know someone who is an exec in a big company and they get AI through their work. They use it for inane things mostly, but recently they used it to generate a list of reasons that their kids *dont need to go to school. This is an educated person with a good job who can't figure out that AI has no idea what their kids need.

    I don't think AI needs to be used by nearly the number of people currently using it, but my bigger concern is letting anyone, be it a private company or a government, have access to something people treat like a magic answer anything machine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I disagree in part. Many people have replaced searching with AI.

    Take a pic of something in chatGPT. "What is this?"

    It's highly useful in everyday life.

    The problem is that people my age were skilled before AI so it is literally just making things easier for us which is the point.

    Kids on the other hand, it is taking away their opportunity to learn as my generation did and that's a huge problem.

    Then we get back to the underlying problem. Governance and standards.

    Should AI be allowed in school? Should companies be forced to continue entry level jobs that could be phased out by AI?

    You could ask a million questions.

    The problem with human nature is we are great at figuring out if we can do things we don't stop to think of we should do things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    If you think taking a picture of something and having AI identify it for you is something that 1) people should do on a daily basis and 2) the government should support AI as a utility for, then we have such different concepts of the world we want to live in that I don't think we'll come to an agreement here. I cannot imagine how that would be "highly useful in everyday life" for the average person.

    The whole "You could ask a million questions" while supporting the idea it should be a utility is so weird to me. Like, yes, we could ask a million questions, and I think we should before suggesting it is a service that every citizen should be somewhat entitled to access from the government in some way (with all the caveats that come with a utility etc etc). It seems like you have fallen into the trap you suggest is inherent to human nature and you haven't bothered to ask if we should do that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The problem with your argument is it runs counter to the facts.

    AI adoption is here. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that's not so, or you can acknowledge it and know there is work still to do.

    https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/artificial-intelligence-ai-usage-statistics/

    https://hbr.org/2026/06/how-people-are-really-using-ai-in-2026

    https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/03/artificial-intelligence-in-daily-life-views-and-experiences/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What argument do you think I'm making and what facts does it run counter to? So a lot of people use AI. That has no relevance to my point at all. Unless you're using popularity of a tool as a proxy for if it's good or not, it's irrelevant to my position. Nuclear proliferation was here at one point, CFCs in everyday consumer products, smoking. There are plenty of things that were popular that we decided were not good for us as a society and we worked to make things different.

    I never said it was unpopular, I said that many people using it have no real need of it and it may be doing more harm than good in many cases. I can say for a fact I know several people who use AI and are worse for doing so. Your own links suggest a majority of the people using it don't find it actually helpful and that they want more control over their interactions with it. That doesn't strike me as a population of people who can't wait to embrace AI or embrace having their governments responsible for ensuring access to it. To be clear, even if they did mostly find it actually helpful, I don't think it means that we need to be providing it.

    Full disclosure, your second link was inaccessible to me so I am going off the data in the other links.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    If people have no need for it then they wouldn't be using it. Full stop. I don't get your argument.

    Clearly the statistics are showing people need it. It is making tasks quicker and/or easier. That's the point.

    You thinking otherwise doesn't change statistics.

    Yes I can do the same shit without it but that means more work and more time. Why would I do that? (I'm saying this as a proxy for the average person)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    i trust no business to use ai coding properly, they cut so many corners in crunch already that pure unfiltered slop will for sure end up committed

    we already see this with microslop windows 11 updates

    it is even worse that many coders think it makes them better at their jobs because given how many issues pop up with factual ai use elsewhere i am sure no one rational expects coding to be exempt from this problem, so the least knowledgeable will be the most impacted with false assurance or worse we have other agents validating agent generated code that never has human eyeballs on it

    slop-centipede of shit code

    the biggest coding bugs either fail silently or succeed incorrectly and ai usage makes both of these worse

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Again based on real world experience I disagree. The problem is the people doing the AI coding and how they were before?

    I have a strong coding background. I know what AI is coding for me. I give it strong guardrails. It does for me in minutes something that would take me hours. I will still review and QA what it does.

    The problem is people who use it to built a monolith of code and I've seen my fair share of that AND documentation driven by AI. It's unneedingly obtuse and verbose and reeks of people who do not know what they're doing.

    There is a huge difference in telling AI to "build me a website in Django" vs. "build me a function to do xyz when the parameters are abc and the return value needs to be lmn"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    my real world experience is both Microsoft win 10 and win 11 having massive impacting bugs since January

    https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1qn0h8l/reports_of_boot_failures_with_the_january_2026/#bottom-comments

    in the case of win 11, multiple times

    even if you personally use it right that says nothing about these massive corporations

    also im not anti ai as a concept but anti ai because tech bros are the fucking anti christ

    i know for a fact in the coding sphere i operate in there are people coding via agent -> agent in multi chains

    that shit is terrifying given the field i work in

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Ok? But that's you. I don't work for Microsoft I work for a major financial company and I have not seen the disastrous impacts you are seeing nor are we rolling out end user software.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent