Hey, I'd only be killing people objectively bad for humanity. Trump and his allies, Putin, my ex-wife, Saudi Arabia's crown Prince, Netanyahu, that guy who cut me off in traffic last month, Rupert Murdoch, the Ellison family...

"Well, well, well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions. "

• Linus Probably

The people who are keeping up with this controversy and end up with this conclusion are wildely illiterate, or, extremely biased and making up fictions.

Warning! very unpopular opinion

I've said it before, and I'll say it again : eventually you just fucking end up with "be a complete person; here's the entire dewey decimal system."

STEM is meant to deal with logic based thinking and the problems unique to that industry, like for instance, a huge gender gap. Shoving arts and humanities in doesn't fix the issue. Cross disciple collaboration is great, expanding your horizons and putting ethics into practices is great, but that's not what STEM is.

There are already plans for these things in practice (hippocratic oath, iron^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_an_Engineer] ring^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring] ), which need to become more widespread. We don't have to have STEAM toys and SHMEAT courses.

Have it do the tedious work

Have it create a better testing environment

Have it do bunch of edge case things or automate ui testing.

Use it as a tool. You can still be the brains.

This is exactly how I use it too. Google and other search engines have gone to complete shit in order to cater to LLMs. So that's how I use the LLM. You are my search bitch, Gemini. No, you're not allowed to actually create anything.

Then just let AI use AI. I'll collect my Nobel prize now thx.

AI is the car of modern times. It's convenient, ruinous for the environment, and a danger to anyone in proximity of one. Hell, we even wasted tons of land on highways kinda like what we're doing with datacenters. But boy, does it get you from point A to point B quick.

"Knives cause lots of stabbings, so let's ban knives"

Some humans cannot own knives responsibility. It doesn't mean I have to cut the pineapple with a spoon.

rationing:

Limit lines of code or diff size. Limit scope. Limit PR per user per month. No bots, obviously. New users don't get to send anything, they can comment and vote, at best. And bring in negative ratings for contributors: low quality, suspicious code, bad PRs.

This is another way of saying deceleration, a word that accelerationists hate.

Because the pace of code production has officially overwhelmed the human capacity to review it. As it was discussed recently. Linus answer was to use more AI, with the implementation of code review tools that gobble up code and spew out summaries.

For the time being, humans reading the summaries count as human reviewed. But at some point in time this system will crack. The current zeitgeist is to restrict who can contribute. Which leads to the obvious follow up question of who decides based on what, and how to decide who deserves to contribute.

You just witnessed the first steps into the philosophical and political erosion of the open source movement. Not just on the kernel but it is also affecting almost all popular FOSS projects.

But of course, that doesnt matter because Linux is not and has never been political. /s

Stop complaining about vibecode, just review it

Hahaha. Not a developer, huh?

There is no way I could possibly review my coworkers' 1000s of lines of code he posts daily. I just blindly approve it because fuggggit we don't care about quality only velocity.

This is different from before because before he would normally post 2 or 3 small code changes per week. Also, he would have tested it himself so starting off it would already be in a good state. Also, since he tested himself, we could talk about the change since he still had the context.

Now it's just ship, ship, ship. We literally can't "review it" like we did before. That world is gone.

attack it with ethics!

You are claiming it's irresponsible, why do you say so?

AI is just a technology, how you use it makes it bad or not.

Nuclear is the cleanest safest energy we have, but you can also make bombs with it.

How do? Does this apply even if it's a locally run LLM? Even if it's done using green energy like Mistral? Even if all of the AI written code is carefully reviewed by professionals?

Is it a problem of making it too easy for people? If so, what is the correct amount of easiness for people? Shall we start taking clothing down to the river to scrub instead of using washing machines too?

Most tokens sold come from China today and open weight models, and most (EDIT) 42% of energy produced in China is from clean sources like nuclear or renewables. Don't blame AI for ethics or lack thereof in neoliberal capitalism and a lack of planning or regulations. China also has the most and smartest regulations on AI so far.