you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 16 hours ago* (15 children)

I know it's early, but so far y'all just throwin' rocks. No intelligent criticism whatsoever of the content you just read (you did read it, right?) - nothing but low-effort jeers. Linus is saying he expects high quality work and doesn't accept a shotgun zero-tolerance mindset against how it's produced. What, in concrete terms, is actually wrong with that?

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 15 hours ago (10 children)

    Some things deserve zero tolerance IMO

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 14 hours ago (7 children)

    Some things do, but work technique isn't one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 14 hours ago (6 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 13 hours ago* (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 hours ago

    You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.

    AI data centers don't need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying "fuck the people and environment" by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.

    AI data center's electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.

    If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane "Ai will solve everything"-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 hours ago

    So, bring the numbers. Where's this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?

    My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 13 hours 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    you did read it, right?

    Why would people read it? There is giant mud fight happening between idiots believing AI is the devil and idiots believing AI is their new lord and savior. And like most morons only interested in that kind of team sport they already picked their side to cheer for. No actual arguments or thinking required.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment