94
AI disclosure is no longer required for the Linux Kernel (thelemmy.club)
submitted 13 hours ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
67 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 7 hours ago (17 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 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 hours ago (16 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 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago (7 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 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

    In their defense, some people just are fucksticks.

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

    Sure, but if 'fuckstick' is your sole 'argument', you can't exactly call foul when someone declines to engage with you for being childish.

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

    Well, they were being truthful and children tend to be exceedingly honest. So yes, it was childish, in a way.

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

    Children don't typically express honesty with 'fuckstick'. 'Childish' here is used to refer to the absence of capacity or ability to engage in constructive discussion. But feel free to keep painting 'fuckstick' in any shade you like. I personally prefer 'Yo mama' jokes when I lack the ability to win a particular argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours 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
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 hours 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
  • [–] -5 points 7 hours ago (7 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 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 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
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 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
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 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
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 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