72
AI disclosure is no longer required for the Linux Kernel (thelemmy.club)
submitted 8 hours ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=14c897740388216acd59477a382de327d5e27ba4

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 hours ago (17 children)

Completely this.

As long as the code is good,. does it matter where it came from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 hours ago (12 children)

    Yes, fuckstick. That's the whole point to a lot of people.

    I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (11 children)

    we'll be waiting in the grown ups room while you figure out how to answer the question "why?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (10 children)

    Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of 'adult in the room', they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

    Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.

    You aren't making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

    Did you miss the part where OP's entire argument was 'fuckstick'?

    Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago* (1 child)

    Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn't used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

    Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

    Maybe if 'fuckstick' was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being 'smug' in some way. I'd call that childish too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 hours ago (6 children)

    the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there's not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you'd be surprised by the amount of slave labour that's used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it's not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that's not an issue with "AI". i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

    "Everything is unethical therefore I don't have to make ethical choices" is bad logic and morally wrong

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

    you don't understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn't understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you're using, is a flase argument because it doesn't exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Ethics aren't black and white but shades of grey. There are indeed more and less ethical choices to make within capitalism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 hours ago

    I don't need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

    Yes.

    If a piece of art is "good" who cares where it came from? The "where it came from" is as integral to the "quality" of the art as the "art" itself.

    This is a very "product" mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.

    The take you're giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Yeah but that's art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.

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

    I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having "ends" at all is valid and beyond reproach.

    What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.

    As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider "utilitarian" and what we don't. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it's facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.

    My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.

    However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn't work, it's useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.

    You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don't think open source developers should have to think about it. I'd rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent