crandall comments on Linus Torvalds shares his thoughts on Anti-AI coding rules

[–] crandall@lemmy.today 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

What about a tool that killed someone every time you used it? Or every ten times you used it? There's a line somewhere, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[+] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there's a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] crandall@lemmy.today 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

My argument is that the environmental costs of AI, not to mention the knock-on effects of the societal change it incurs, lead to people dying.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] crandall@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.