"If all of this was done to better humanity, AI development would be done in public, data would be legally obtained, models would be released for free, access wouldn't be gatekept behind ever increasing subscription costs."
The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek, and all the other research labs. There are more research labs than there are closed shops. In fact there really is only one Anthropic, and lately maybe OpenAI. Google still releases papers all the time on AI.
There are more open source models than closed source models and all of them are accessible without a subscription. Yeah you still need to pay for them, but hey as we build out infrastructure and more time is put into efficient models today will easily run on person compute of the future.
over 80% of the article is rooted in ideology. of the remaining 20% the criticism is that people are using LLMs in bad ways.
> Anyhow, I am not delusional, I know the GenAI genie can't be put back into the bottle. We will be stuck with GenAI for the rest of our lives. The internet will not return to how it was before GenAI, and a lot of the problems I have outlined in this post will continue to grow worse due to AI.
at least he isn't delusional.
> I just hope that the setiment against AI will continue to sour, and that humanity may prevail while maybe stopping everything from going to shit. I hope the AI companies collapse, alongside the vast majority of AI investment that big tech has commited to it (and big tech collapsing would be quite neat too).
the author's decision to eschew a spell checker aside, even if all LLM progress was to freeze right now there would still be value in building more datacenters to make tokens cheaper and demand for them higher. LLMs pull text from the universe of all possible text biased towards your prompt and they do it rather well, there will be value in merely running them thousands of times on the same prompt and testing the results.
I sincerely disagree that AI is worse than the crypto/NFT hype… pig butchering is one of the most disgusting practices imaginable and it was turned into a legitimate low effort vehicle for scammers due to web3 and the hype train.
AI is definitely on a scale of magnitude more but it has inherent value outside of “scarcity”. It’s actually quite the opposite with sheer supply/demand balance. Also investing in crypto made me less money than investing in myself by using AI to learn and challenge myself to think differently.
> I am going to state a bet: In 5 to 10 years, once all the vibe coders get hooked into LLMs, there's going to be so much unmaintainable, wrongly architectured crap code in every codebase they touch, that by then they are unable to get any work done without consulting their LLM. And if that heap of collected technical debt becomes so large that even the LLM fails
In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder that this is a moot point. If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
I can understand hating AI, but it seems like many who are against genAI have a strange delusional disbelief of how good the models are, and the trend-line we are on. They think that their special skills will never be eclipsed by an AI model. If you are going on a crusade against genAI and LLM’s at least be honest about what you’re up against.
In my opinion by Opus 4.7 Claude was better at coding than most programmers. While there is certainly more slop being produced now overall, I believe the quality of important projects like Linux and proprietary software created by large companies, where advanced AI will be piloted by skilled engineers, will improve in quality, maybe dramatically, over the next decade.
I am still 100% willing to concede that Opus 4.8 or even how good Mythos is supposed to be is not yet at the general reasoning ability of top 5% coders or any smart human with a few years of domain experience. However the rate of improvement is so consistent and unrelenting that it seems silly to assume that it will just stop short of human level. Even if algorithmic, research and data quality improvements suddenly stopped, we still have years of better GPU’s and scaling
There is still, to this very day, not a good reason for most businesses to run their workloads in the cloud (startups being a notable exception). So, your argument isn't as compelling as you think.
I generally try not to be outright dismissive of articles/blogposts, but I don't see a ton of value in reading about someone being against opening Pandora's Box after the box has been opened. It can never be shut and we are going to have to figure out how to live with the consequences of it.
I gave the article a chance regardless and it's nothing I've not read before.
It’s kind of a pointless article. Also framed wrong. Generative AI doesn’t “stand for” anything. It’s just a cool technology. Author’s time would be better spent criticizing big tech perhaps.
The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek, and all the other research labs. There are more research labs than there are closed shops. In fact there really is only one Anthropic, and lately maybe OpenAI. Google still releases papers all the time on AI.
There are more open source models than closed source models and all of them are accessible without a subscription. Yeah you still need to pay for them, but hey as we build out infrastructure and more time is put into efficient models today will easily run on person compute of the future.
AI is definitely on a scale of magnitude more but it has inherent value outside of “scarcity”. It’s actually quite the opposite with sheer supply/demand balance. Also investing in crypto made me less money than investing in myself by using AI to learn and challenge myself to think differently.
In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder that this is a moot point. If anything AI will be used to correct all the crappy human made code that is still being pushed due to the vanity of coders still pretending that they are better than AI at coding.
I can understand hating AI, but it seems like many who are against genAI have a strange delusional disbelief of how good the models are, and the trend-line we are on. They think that their special skills will never be eclipsed by an AI model. If you are going on a crusade against genAI and LLM’s at least be honest about what you’re up against.
I gave the article a chance regardless and it's nothing I've not read before.