▲ 87 ▼ Linus Torvalds shares his thoughts on Anti-AI coding rules (thelemmy.club) submitted 17 hours ago by cm0002@infosec.pub to c/linux@programming.dev 114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] crandall@lemmy.today 16 points 16 hours ago (10 children) Some things deserve zero tolerance IMO permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -5 points 12 hours ago (1 child) As I have gone through life, I have decided that just about the only thing that deserves zero tolerance is zero tolerance itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] aichan@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance? permalink fedilink source parent [+] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -7 points 15 hours ago (7 children) Some things do, but work technique isn't one of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 7 points 15 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -5 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 9 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -5 points 12 hours ago (1 child) As I have gone through life, I have decided that just about the only thing that deserves zero tolerance is zero tolerance itself. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] aichan@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] aichan@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance? permalink fedilink source parent
[+] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -7 points 15 hours ago (7 children) Some things do, but work technique isn't one of them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 7 points 15 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -5 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 9 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crandall@lemmy.today 7 points 15 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -5 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 9 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -5 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 9 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crandall@lemmy.today 9 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ooops@feddit.org 0 points 10 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -1 points 12 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world -4 points 14 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] crandall@lemmy.today 1 point 14 hours ago* Fair enough. I'm not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using. permalink fedilink source parent