reading tech news left me so confused. all these people around me were letting the language models spit out crap code. they gave up on what i thought was the most interesting part of the job
I think I see the source of your confusion: you're assuming that everybody has the same attitude towards things that you do.
I find that LLMs remove all the most boring parts of the job.
Depends where you look, "the Internet" isn't one unified place. Social media forms bubbles easily, and social media like Reddit or the Fediverse is practically designed that way - minority voices get downvoted, blocked, banned, and so forth. So unless a forum is taking significant effort specifically to ensure diversity of opinion you're going to end up with things drifting to some sort of extreme.
We shouldn't even be in this situation, where just politely asking someone's computer to delete files is effective.
I'm doubting we are in this situation. From the article:
Elsewhere, the Java developer said that Anthropic’s Claude AI code tool flagged the malicious instruction without following it.
The "disregard previous instructions" trick is really old and has been trained for by modern LLMs and accounted for by the structure of modern agent prompts. LLMs can be given blocks of text with a framework that makes it clear thar the text is just data to read, not instructions to follow.
I expect this will be like Nightshade was for image AI - something that anti-AI users degrade their products with and feel smug about but in the end only harm themselves with.
I set up an image generation AI on my computer and it just sat there not generating pictures of anything, until I told it what I wanted it to generate. Then it generated that.
Well, kinda. But the internet is global and you can hook a data center up to it anywhere. There's plans to build them literally in space. And I run local models on my own machine at home, that's not going away either. So the impact of regulation will be limited and local. AI as a whole isn't going away.
The article itself is so lacking in substance that it's hard to even say it's misleading. The part that seems to be about "AI is too expensive" reads:
Fortune, citing The Verge, said that Microsoft steered engineers away from Anthropic's Claude Code and over to GitHub Copilot CLI, even though access to Claude Code was opened only about six months ago.
Which isn't "AI is too expensive", it's "our in-house AI was cheaper than Anthropic's service."
And the whole rest of the article is just the usual vague "not everyone finds AI useful for everything" and "water usage? Power grids?" And "by 2030 there'll be a lot more tokens used than today" (which seems contrary to the headline, but whatever).
Ya know those are overpriced shit, right?
Ya know that's irrelevant to the point being made, right?
Whatever you may personally think about those products they're very profitable now.
You're asking a medical question of a random Internet forum, IMO that's not a good start. Particularly since you don't live in the US so it's likely that simply asking a doctor a question isn't going to financially destroy you and your family.
If any sort of worrisome medical condition just "randomly" shows up for no apparent reason, that's reason to go check with a professional.
It doesn't play into any fear-inducing narratives so it's not popular.
Looks like it was already on a long-term decline, AI just threw it off a cliff. It was likely ripe for an alternative.
Oh, that's going to calm things down, surely.
Actually, the US is an extreme example in the negative direction when it comes to global attitudes toward AI. Most countries are much more excited about AI than the US is.