Nope. If anyone makes any mistake in their life that is cause to cancel them permanently. In fact, if anyone even says something I remotely disapprove of, me and my friends will make sure to hound them for eternity. Don't try to change for the better, either, we all know what you did.

Yes, though it goes further than that even if you ignore the politics.

Linus is undoubtedly talking about when an LLM is used in a very specific way in his imagination where it's helping a competent programmer spot some things they might have missed, but the programmer is still diligent and professional and genuinely does take responsibility for ensuring the quality of their commits. Where the delusion comes in is grossly overestimating how many people are actually like that outside of his inner circle of world-level experts. What's happening in all the other open-source projects is a flood of low quality garbage PRs from meat proxies.

It may be that Linus Torvalds has the political literacy of a doorstop.

I am familiar with their actual history, but the colloquialism has taken on its own life just as the term "nimrod" no longer describes the famous hunter of that name but rather a bumbling buffoon.

As regards the politics of it, we can split these hairs all day. Where do we draw the line between a tool and a weapon? Which tools are acceptable to use and in what ways?

That AI is being used as a political bludgeon is not the fault of AI any more than gunshot wounds are the direct fault of the gun; they are tools being used for particular aims. I consider both equally dangerous in the right (wrong) hands, but by that same token a gun can be used to feed a family when used for hunting just as AI has provided monetary benefits to regular working people.

A tool cannot in and of itself be political. Its use and application absolutely can.

ETA: Upon re-reading I see that my "nimrod" comparison can read as an insult. I meant it more in how Bugs Bunny altered the colloquial meaning. I was not trying to be disparaging in Amy way and apologize if I offended.

I mean, it's already been settled in the US that AI slop cannot be copyrighted, so every fucking brainless moron still pushing for it in any professional capacity (including Linus) is being a fucking dumb pile of shit poisoning the codebase with things that cannot be copyrighted or otherwise restricted such as Linux' current license...

Here's the thing. What is it that an LLM does? I would argue, it sumarizes.

More or less, yeah. It produces text that reads like it would fit in its training model.

What do LLMs summarize, though..? The internet. Reddit.4chan.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Give it a corpus of text, and it can "understand" that data and extract "meaning" from it.

No it can't. It can produce text that looks like it fits with it, but it has no knowledge of what its training data, its prompt, or its output mean.

LLMs don't operate on meaning or information, they operate on the shape of texts.

The fact that they look like they work (as long as you aren't an expert on the supposed subject matter of their output) would tell us much more about the nature of language and its readers, if we bothered to look, than the apparent meaning of their outputs, but of course the capitalist mind couldn't care less about that, and given a dumb oracle that appears to give “good enough” answers can't help but sell it as a superintelligent one that always gives perfectly accurate and correct ones, no matter the consequences.

Is that useful?

Not really, no. Maybe as a substitute for lorem ipsum if it weren't so damn inefficient and morally unsustainable, but that's about it.

“But the one remaining overworked not yet fired expert can review the output!” you'll say, falling into the trap of treating the machine as a dumb but hard working intern instead of what it is.

Because the thing with interns is that when they produce garbage it looks like garbage, and the expert can immediately see it and teach the intern why it's garbage and how to fix it. And eventually the intern will become an expert, and review and train new interns, and society will progress.

But when an LLM produces garbage it's indistinguishable from correct output at first, second, and even third glance, even by the best experts.

Because LLMs might not have the slightest idea of what a text means, but if they're good at something it's at producing correct looking texts.

So the expert ends up wasting orders of magnitude more time trying to determine whether the output is safe or garbage... or simply gives up.

What's worse, the LLM won't learn. It won't become an expert capable of replacing the old one and reviewing and teaching new interns, or obviously LLMs.

The expert will be fired, or retire, or die of overworking and heartbreak, and there will be no one to replace them.

No one to write new content to train new LLMs on.

And even if LLMs were capable of producing new content instead of merely lossly regurgitating their training data, which they aren't, you can't train LLMs on their own output. The model collapses. Photocopy of a photocopy, JPEG of a JPEG.

At the point in history when we need progress the most, to face and survive our own hubris from past abuses of nature, science, society, everything will stagnate, and then collapse, and the ignorant wretches who'll have grown up in a world without teachers, not having to had to use their atrophied brains once in their lives, will ask their oracles “save us, what do we do!?” and the LLMs will reply “You're right, I was mistaken. I apologize for the confusion. Delegating thought and knowledge to a machine inherently incapable of either might have been a mistake. My bad.”.

Doesn't look very useful to me, really, quite the contrary... but I suppose I'm just not thinking in terms of the next quarter.

you'd use that as an argument later on to defend AI,

Meanwhile I actually said:

I genuinely believe humanity would be better off without AI

Your reading comprehension needs work.

My literal only point in all of this has become that tools exist independent of politics. I also think guns are abhorrent, but they exist and we have to deal with them. So it is with AI. The gun and AI are neither independently political items. It is their use which turns them into political topics well worth discussing.

If I were able to Thanos snap both guns and AI off the face of the earth along with all capability to ever produce their like again I would do it without a second thought or care for any of the consequences for it as I believe both are indeed net negatives for humanity.

As i lack that capability, I am going to have to learn how to live my life in a world where these things do exist. I also don't blame the items themselves for existing, but rather the evil people who build them in the name of ever greater profits.

But you keep putting words and beliefs in other people's mouths if it makes you feel better, I guess.

AI still doesn't actually exist. Weird how you claim it's been around fifty years... It hasn't. At all. Ever. That is the ELIZA effect, which is distinctly NOT "AI".

You're still right in that it is effectively a joke being played on the world, though.

I can, uh, go read some Marx if you need? Would that make it better?

and it's fustrating seeing the acceptance of AI code into it.

and its frustating to see pushback against it.