Resist "AI"

(ronjeffries.com)

34 points | by mborch 1 hour ago

13 comments

  • cautiouscat 2 minutes ago
    I admittedly flip-flop on this quite a bit. I use LLMs in my work and for a bunch of pet projects I don’t really care much about.

    For the pet projects, it’s not really a big deal. I’m the only user, and I as the user don’t care how it works under the hood.

    Work is a different story. I have never felt more disconnected from my work than in the last 6-8 months. It takes a huge mental toll to read into our code and figure stuff out, almost like I just got hired and I’m working on new code for the first time. I’m asked to read “specs” written by LLMs that are unintelligible and I find my brain disconnecting immediately. Tickets, also written by LLMs pose the same problem.

    I’m asking teammates questions because I want their answer and I’m told to just ask Claude.

    None of this feels good, it may be where the industry is heading but as a professional it feels wrong.

  • unified101 17 minutes ago
    The important question is: Will my work competitor also resist AI? We have no way to organize this, and hence, as they say, "resistance is futile".
    • lnkl 9 minutes ago
      The point is, you will be better than your competitor if you resist it.
    • layer8 5 minutes ago
      It probably depends on how you are positioned on the market, but my employer has yet to see competitive pressure from not using AI.
  • czpl 8 minutes ago
    Why are we glossing over the fact that it's all trained on stolen code, stolen art, stolen books? It's unethical to use it, it's unethical to take money for it. It should be either free or killed. I really don't understand why we just collectively accepted that.
    • mapontosevenths 3 minutes ago
      I gloss over it because it's an argument that makes no sense to me.

      Copyright exists to encourage progress in the arts and sciences. Not to enrich artists or scientists.

      Ai is progress. Further, the works it creates are fully transformative. It isn't just spitting out Harry Potter verbatim, it's making new things from it.

      To me, this argument is like staying that if you read Winnie The Pooh as a child then Milne owns your artistic output for life, because one of your many influences might have been his work. It just seems obvious at face value.

    • sdcfgy 5 minutes ago
      Not all of us did.
  • DannyBee 4 minutes ago
    I guess i'll give a super-unpopular take.

    Listening to developers complain about AI doing things to their life and the world at large when they have spent the past 30 years automating just about everyone else they could out of a job (Since this has been one of the primary uses of software) is ... something else. It sounds like a a a mix of hubris, arrogance, cognitive dissonance, ignorance, etc.

    Only when it started to affect their world did any developers start to care, and even then nobody seems to ever stop and say "hey what were we doing the past 30 years, maybe we should think about this", it's instead "hey look at what these other people are doing with AI, someone should think about this".

  • voidUpdate 38 minutes ago
    I've never understood the water argument... yes, it takes a lot of water in the initial setup to fill the water cooling loops, but isn't not constantly burning water, right? it gets cooled off again and goes around the loop
    • N_Lens 29 minutes ago
      It’s not a good argument in my opinion, just something that’s spread because it’s easy to latch onto. The actual numbers on water usage aren’t a big deal.

      That’s not to say that AI is all fine and dandy, I genuinely think frontier AI companies have deranged leadership.

    • alcomatt 35 minutes ago
      In some cases it does. Most of the DCs use open evaporators still. Keeps the costs down.
      • mapontosevenths 8 minutes ago
        Yes. The part I don't get is why do we care about that?

        Earth is two thirds water, and it rains. The water I drank this morning is million of years old. It will be around for millions more.

        So, they pump some water out of the earth and it evaporates... It will come back down, and we aren't running out anytime soon.

        Why do we care? Are they building these things in deserts? If so that's the problem. They should use closed loops if they want to build in the desert.

        • joenada 1 minute ago
          This is satirical, right? They use fresh water, which is a tiny, tiny % of all water on earth.
      • samvher 2 minutes ago
        Yes and many forms of electricity generation evaporate water as well
    • scotty79 4 minutes ago
      It's about evaporative cooling. Read about how cooling towers work in nuclear and coal plants. The principle is the same for the data centers, but it the wasteheat to get rid of comes from computation.

      They obviously shouldn't be doing it like that, but since clean water is cheap and business in absence of reason optimizes for lowest costs that's exactly what they did.

  • vertnerd 19 minutes ago
    "After trying Kagi/Duck Duck Go, I have gone back to Google for search and I freely grant that I find the “AI Overview” to be useful."

    I feel compelled to point out that Kagi does offer AI-backed answers if you want it to. Just pose your query with a question mark to trigger the AI response in addition to the usual search results. It is not ever the default or only answer, and I pray Kagi keeps it that way!

    I use the AI option more often than I thought I would, usually for things that I don't consider controversial or complicated.

  • glimshe 21 minutes ago
    Emotional rejection of AI will lead to the same outcome of emotional rejection of cars, the printing press and computers.

    Additionally, when it comes to the software field, it will be sure way of selecting yourself out of the work pool.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--bH6O2_Vvk

    • lirolero 8 minutes ago
      > it will be sure way of selecting yourself out of the work pool

      i'm ok with that

  • ftomassetti 2 minutes ago
    I see good ethical reasons to be against AI, but I see no reasons why “resisting” would lead to anything but irrelevance. So I think this is terrible advice
  • meander_water 18 minutes ago
    I see a lot of people throw their hands up in the air and say "I have no control over this, might as well go all in on AI".

    But we as individual consumers have more power than we think. We don't need to use these AI features and products. We've survived perfectly fine without AI. Made plenty of scientific discoveries and lead enriched lives without it.

    The biggest "fuck you" to the pricks who pushed this on us would be if we collectively went "meh".

    • _davide_ 1 minute ago
      I understand the appeal of saying fuck you to billionaires and pathological liars CEOs and the annoying usages of AI, but i don't understand the wider "fuck you AI".

      AI are here, is it going to demolish and (maybe) reconstruct the world as we know it, trying to avoid it it's just silly. There is no sane world where we can "stop AI", even if every single researcher were to do vanish tomorrow and the hardware and schematics magically gone, it would still only be a stopgap.

      So...What are you trying to achieve?

  • serbuvlad 37 minutes ago
    I'm not saying this situation is different from all of the other technological paradigm shifts in history.

    But what concerns me is that authors of articles such as this feel no need to differentiate themselves from other anti-technology arguments in history.

    • alcomatt 33 minutes ago
      I think it is very much different. Previous revolutions allowed us to fall back from manual labour to more mental driven work. Now even this is not going to be an option. Soon we're going to be reduced to be useful for spare parts only.
    • moolcool 30 minutes ago
      To be fair, many of the old anti-technology arguments were correct. We lived with the consequences, but life also went on.
    • happytoexplain 24 minutes ago
      Why would they need to differentiate? You're implying those arguments were wrong?

      The argument usually isn't "I believe X will not happen," it's usually either "I believe X should not happen" or "I believe we should manage how X happens".

  • capestart 34 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • draw_down 33 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • borzi 13 minutes ago
    Why? AI is enriching my life and letting me focus on solving hard problems. I don't believe in the sentience crap and am just using it at face value for what it is, a useful productivity tool. Every software developer's main purpose is to automate and reduce the amount of boring manual labour required. By this logic, should people in the past have "resisted the software development department"?