Many people on Lemmy despise AI with a passion, and demand storefronts provide them with the ability to exercise their prejudice against developers choosing to use AI tools during development. I think it's silly, but if we're going to start judging developers based on the tools they used then we should expand the concept to the full extent. For example, many people here don't like Microsoft, and so developers should be forced to disclose whether they used Windows, Visual Studio or GitHub in development so that people can discriminate on that basis.

Personally I think Apple is the worst company in the technology industry, and I would like to be able to see which developers used Apple hardware in development so I can boycott them and make sure none of my funds are inadvertantly going to pay Apple. We're abandoning the old practice of simply judging software based on the end product, and instead we're scrutinizing the creation process itself, so we shouldn't stop at just AI usage. Let's pick apart every development decision that would otherwise be invisible to the end user.

Why stop at AI? Using a Mac is far more unethical in my view. Let's enable people to boycott on every single possible tool used, and not focus on a single one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 day ago (1 child)

You're being intentionally obtuse. This is less an unpopular opinion and more a strawman that you can dominate. Gen AI end product is often low quality, hallucination prone, expensive and unreliable. Using AI to code also exponentially raises the likelihood that you do not fully understand "your" code and thus limited in improving it. AI hate us not a random "prejudice" or arbitrary "discrimination" but an evaluation of the final product and the limitations of the tool that made it.

It's normal to continue arguments in your head when your upset, but those thoughts generally shouldn't turn into posts.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] -3 points 1 day ago

    I don't believe I am being obtuse. I think we just have different perspectives, and that's okay.

    As I said in another analogy, some people are prejudiced against those with tribal tattoos, because they feel like it's usurping cultural heritage. They would boycott a restaurant where the chef has such a tattoo, even though it's a visual style of personal choice that in no way affects the food served. It's the same thing with AI - people argue it's appropriation of others efforts, and they refuse to eat at a restaurant where the menu designer used the tool on the menu.

    Perhaps with this analogy you can better see the similarities in thinking?

  • source
  • parent