80
Linus Torvalds shares his thoughts on Anti-AI coding rules (thelemmy.club)
submitted 14 hours ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

No, it doesn't assume TootSweet is Einstein.

It's pretty sad that you seem to think that popular opinions are correct.

Plenty of popular opinions are wrong. And unpopular opinions are right.

The popular opinion is that AI is great at coding. But there isn't much evidence that it is. There's lots of evidence that it produces a lot of lines of code. Scant little evidence that it's good code.

Hence the analogy to hamburger versus steak. They're both beef, so technically the same. But hamburger is adulterated and watered-down. Steak is the real deal. So AI code is to real enginnering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

    I pointed out that several smart people were disagreeing with TootSweet. You responded:

    Big “100 physicists have signed a letter saying you’re wrong, Mr. Einstein” energy.

    Who else would "Einstein" be in this analogy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

    Anyone. Show the proof that anyone is wrong. Linus Torvalds’ opinion isn’t proof of anything.

    The scientific method gives you a way to disprove the hypothesis and you can’t do it. The fact that some, or dozens, or hundreds of people disagree doesn’t disprove anything.

    Truth isn’t a democracy.

    Edit:

    The proof that Einstein was right wasn’t that his name was Albert and that he was respected by other physicists. Early on, he wasn’t respected by other physicists.

    What proved him right was the apparent position of Mercury near the sun, proving that gravity bent light, proving his theory of relativity.

    Newton’s laws of motion didn’t account for that. And that proved Newton wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    When did I ever claim "proof" of anything, let alone with scientific rigor? Here was my original comment, verbatim:

    If everyone you thought was smart are disagreeing with you, perhaps take another look at your position on the matter? Might be a reason beyond spontaneous mass "psychosis."

    This is advising uncertainty, not certainty. The opposite of what you appear to be accusing me of here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •