There are different attitudes of engineers. Some are more results-oriented and see the code as just a means to an end. It's difficult to get good at programming and AI makes it so you don't really have to, so they gladly accept it as a way to build things faster.

And then there's me on the exact opposite end of that spectrum. I don't care much at all for the end result except that it's what allows me to get to do programming. I like the puzzle and figuring out how to make it all work line-by-line. AI takes away all of the fun part and it does it so terribly.

Up til now both types of programmers got along decently well because building things correctly and quickly have usually taken similar paths. But with the advent of AI we're now quite at odds with each other, and it's been quite a pain for me.

How many AI driven cyber attacks are artists dealing with? Because they are here, cheaper to make, and much more potent than they used to be.

as a coder myself, I admit that sometimes coders are the dumbest people in the world because they live in their own bubble. they only see LLM as mere tools that would greatly help with development.

do they know how many resources are wasted by data centers? do they care when the people suffer from data center pollution? or do they realised LLM trained by stealing people works? etc

In a work environment there's always been pressure to ship software faster. The industry has never been good at measuring individual or team effectiveness, which has resulted in all kinds of dumb metrics (lines of code, ticket count, etc). I see AI as just another amplifier bad behavior. Don't use it? Odds are a teammate will and they'll be viewed as more productive than you. In today's world of tech layoffs that's not a good position to find yourself in.

There's a second angle to this too: there are two cohorts of AI users. Those who follow what I would call the YOLO path and those who spend the time iterate on the output. In my case, layers of management are blissfully unaware of this distinction, but they sure like the "line go up fast" nature of the YOLO crowd.

A lot more software developer are only there for as a career than artists in the art world, so you're immediately surrounded by people who see stuff like code performance and readability as "something nerdy", while you can push out more lines of code instead of optimizing. Not more features, more lines of code, as coding got taken over by the careerists.

That mixed with:

• most tech criticism used to come from out-of-touch parents, thinking you're from one Quake match away from getting a machine gun to "play it in real life" (was even prevalent in non-US countries due to all kinds of moral panics);
• seeing unsupportative parents utterly devastating their kids' careers in tech due to weird beliefs and expectations,
• seeing at least some tech fad eventually working out after the toxic hype cycle (Jack Tramiel wanted you to use your C64 for food recipes),
• forgetting that many hyped tech did actually die off (remember Kinect and NFTs?)

lead to people to think LLMs are the next big thing even if AGI won't come.

There's also the issue of how society frames AI "extremism". People like to think in horseshoe theories, and that extremists are necessarily annoying. The tech industry likes to frame "vibe coders with AI psychosis" and "people really not wanting to engage with AI" as the extremes to avoid. In reality, the two extremes are TESCREALists, and anti-tech extremists. Also seen many "totally not vibe coders" using AI to generate a general understanding for the code to avoid scrutiny, while seen "AI assisted" coding going just as off the rails as vibe coding due to overly trusting the chatbot, with many still going down the AI psychosis route.

Good

Sounds like the people that respond with "well you have a cellphone" when mass surveillance is the topic.

They're describing the idea that the projects that Graphene is built atop and alongside of all use AI. That even if tomorrow it was decided to not allow any AI-generated code, due to the nature of being downstream, avoiding its inclusion in all capacities is actually impossible.

There is not a hint of peer pressure in this snippet. And if you knew Graphene's history, you'd realize how absurd of a statement it is to accuse them of being peer pressured. They regularly do random shit and tell critics to get bent.

With that said, I would of course prefer they don't accept any AI-generated code at all, but quite frankly it's a bit bizarre of an ask in 2026 given the game Graphene plays with cutting edge development's intersection with privacy tools.

Human review and deterministic code analysis, just like with code of any other provenance

What abiut the hardware memory tagging issue brought up doubts? I think it was a reasonable stance for a group focused on pirvacy/security