35
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 days ago

At this point, anti-AI sentiment is just cope. AI is here to stay. For the people against AI, what is the praxis that must be undertaken against AI? AI, like any other tool, is lifeless but has living users that use, support, and develop it, so the question of praxis against AI becomes a question of praxis against workers who use, develop, and propagate AI.

This is why the Luddites failed. The Luddites had enough people to conduct organized raids, but the fact that those machinations were installed and continued to be installed by other workers meant that they represented a minority of workers. If they had a critical mass of workers on their side, those machinery would quite simply not be installed in the first place. Who else is going to install the machinery, the bourgeoisie, the gentry, and a bunch of merchants involved in human trafficking of Africans slaves?

Those looms didn't sprout legs and installed themselves. They were installed by other workers, workers who, for whatever reason, disagreed with the Luddite's praxis or ideology. Viewed in this context, it made sense why the Luddites failed in the end. Who cares if 500 looms got smashed by the Luddites if 600 looms got installed by non-Luddite workers anyways.

Corps are already starting to build underground data centers, so you and your plucky guerilla band of anti-AI insurgents can't just firebomb a data center that's build from a repurposed nuclear bunker. Pretty much all of the AI scientists who push the field forward are Chinese scientists safely located within the People's Republic of China, so liquidating AI scientists for being class traitors is out of the question. Then what else is left in terms of anti-AI praxis besides coping about it online and downvoting pro-AI articles from some cheap knockoff of R*ddit?

[-] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

This is precisely what I've been trying to explain to people as well. Corporations will keep developing this technology. Nothing will stop this. It’s happening. So the only question that matters is: How will it be developed, and who controls it?

The irony is that fighting against the use of this tech outside corporations guarantees corps become its sole owners. The only rational path is to back community-driven development, just like any other open-source alternatives to corporate tools. Worker-owned. Community-controlled.

It’s mind-boggling that so many people fail to understand this.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago
[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

If you're not coding in assembly you're not a real programmer vibes there.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

I don't think that was their vibes.

From article:

the point is not to let ourselves be replaced by AIs, but to use them to improve ourselves and our productivity

My take:

The role of the programmer is ultimately to solve the problems. There are many ways to skin the cat. The better solutions comes from the better programmers.

Bosses under capitalism have less understanding of the pros/cons of a particular solution. Hence they will often use their decision making powers to choose the quick solution rather than the best.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

I mean that's been the case all along, that's why most software is janky. The problem isn't technology itself, it's capitalist relations and the way technology ends up being applied as a result.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

There are bugs in every system. AI will just create different types of bugs. It's the nature of technology.

The hype money being thrown at AI is making the F35 of software out of this shit though. Big Tech accumulated so much cash and had nothing to throw it at after VR didn't take off.

Then we get Skynet.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

AI is just a tool, and what bugs end up in software is solely dependent on the person using the tool.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

Really? I got "if you don't understand the code you're producing, then that's a real problem, not just for you but for software development as a whole".

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

Ah yes, because cargo cult coding totally wasn't a thing before LLMs showed up.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

Hey, I don't fucking know, I'm not a coder. Maybe people were blindly copy-pasting StackOverflow code into their projects and just hoping it worked well enough. It seems to me LLM's make it easier to write working but dangerous code (this article also seems to say this), and I'm not sure making dangerous code easier to produce is a good idea.

But whatever, again, I'm not a coder, I just wanted to push back a little on your extremely uncharitable reading of an article you don't like.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago

I'm am a coder, and I've been doing this professionally for over two decades now. I don't think LLMs play any actual role here.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Ok? I think you're having a fight with someone who isn't me! I'm really just trying to say that your reading of the article about vibe coding is extremely uncharitable. The author didn't seem, to me, like someone who is against making stuff easier for people, but instead someone with worries about whether LLM's might actually be dangerous.

You can disagree about their danger (you clearly do), but I'm unqualified to speak to their danger (I'm not a coder), and so that aspect of the matter isn't something I'm eager to discuss, and isn't something I've tried to discuss. All I've said is that I think your dismissal of the author of the article as someone who won't be satisfied until everyone is coding in assembly is wildly off-base.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

My view is that the author of the article is basically engaging in gatekeeping saying that people should use particular tools to do coding, and that LLMs make it too easy for people who shouldn't be coding to produce code. The reality is that the author is not happy with the fact that the bar is being lowered.

The argument regarding supposed danger is pure nonsense because any professional development involves code reviews, testing, and other practices to ensure code quality. Nobody just checks in random code into projects and hopes that it works.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 1 week ago

LLMs really might displace many software developers. That’s not a high horse we get to ride. Our jobs are just as much in tech’s line of fire as everybody else’s have been for the last 3 decades. We’re not East Coast dockworkers; we won’t stop progress on our own

why did I do computer science god I fucking hate every person in this field it's amazing how much of an idiot everyone is.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
35 points (88.9% liked)

Technology

1134 readers
17 users here now

A tech news sub for communists

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS