get past there built in kneejerk reaction to anything AI related
Maybe because it’s not kneejerk. We know how AI works, what it takes to have it running, how it was built, who controls it. For many people, the ends do not justify the means (and that’s if we assume fixing CVEs on Linux is somehow worth the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway).
I have softened very VERY slightly on AI code. If it can identify genuine issues than that is fine. It is when folks just trust it blindly and just send 50 commits without understanding a thing or even remotely testing it, that is just crazy. But then on the flip side, yeah all the other issues probably aren’t worth it.
It is complicated at times but then things like this always are. The most successful evil always has some claim to virtue.
Alas, occasionally you have to walk with the devil to achieve some good. One just has to weigh up if it is worth it.
I once asked Stallman about how he used to build and run GNU tools before having the Linux kernel. He was using a proprietary Minix system as a means to get work done until there was a better alternative. I mean running a proprietary system is one thing, burning through the amazon with 100 quintillion tokens is very different.
Some people seem to be unable to fathom the fact that AI can be useful in some circumstances, always assuming the worst despite no evidence to suggest it.
And the point is that this statement can be true AND we can still think AI should cease to be used. The “useful in some circumstances” benefit does not justify the ethical and environmental cost.
People here can’t seam to get past there built in kneejerk reaction to anything AI related.
Maybe because it’s not kneejerk. We know how AI works, what it takes to have it running, how it was built, who controls it. For many people, the ends do not justify the means (and that’s if we assume fixing CVEs on Linux is somehow worth the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway).
Please Mr. Time Traveller. Tell us about the future.
I have softened very VERY slightly on AI code. If it can identify genuine issues than that is fine. It is when folks just trust it blindly and just send 50 commits without understanding a thing or even remotely testing it, that is just crazy. But then on the flip side, yeah all the other issues probably aren’t worth it.
It is complicated at times but then things like this always are. The most successful evil always has some claim to virtue.
Alas, occasionally you have to walk with the devil to achieve some good. One just has to weigh up if it is worth it.
I once asked Stallman about how he used to build and run GNU tools before having the Linux kernel. He was using a proprietary Minix system as a means to get work done until there was a better alternative. I mean running a proprietary system is one thing, burning through the amazon with 100 quintillion tokens is very different.
Some people seem to be unable to fathom the fact that AI can be useful in some circumstances, always assuming the worst despite no evidence to suggest it.
And the point is that this statement can be true AND we can still think AI should cease to be used. The “useful in some circumstances” benefit does not justify the ethical and environmental cost.
What would your preferred outcome in this situation be then? The bad guys are going to use AI to find exploits. What should the good guys do?
Dollars to donuts says they don’t have a preferred outcome, or at least not anything that amounts to more than wishful thinking.
It’s crazy how many people have only reactionary opinions that are largely divorced from reality when it comes to humanity’s relationship with AI.
WHERE built in the kneejerk?