5 ms·

Some people are just against change, that's nothing new. If Linus was like them, he would never have started linux in the first place.

goatlover 6mo ago
Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.
- contraposit 6mo ago
  This is like blaming a knife as being a killer weapon. Social media is inherently good if owners of the platforms allow for good interactions to take place. But given the mismatch between incentives alignment, we don't have nice things.
  - dwedge 6mo ago
    Social media is good if owners allow for good is an example of the logical fallacy "begging the question"
    - contraposit 6mo ago
      Also blaming the tool for the crime is some sort of fallacy. I don't know name you can ask AI.
- cinntaile 6mo ago
  Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo. People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it will affect anything. The genie is out of the bottle, AI is here to stay. You either adapt or you will slowly wither away.
  - dwedge 6mo ago
    It reminds me of something I read on mastodon: "genie doesn't go back in the bottle say AI promoters while the industry spends a trillion dollars a year to try to keep the genie out of the bottle"
    - cinntaile 6mo ago
      Do you think the genie will go back in the bottle and why?
      - matheusmoreira 6mo ago
        It's certainly possible. All that is required is for AIs to become more expensive than humans. Developing projects on a $100 Claude Code subscription is a lot of fun. I bet people would simply go back to hiring human developers if that subscription cost $10,000 instead.
        lrvick 6mo ago
        Except you can pay $2500 once for a Strix Halo and have your own Claude Code hosted at home for free with unlimited tokens on 400w.
        matheusmoreira 6mo ago
        Well, I hope you're right. I want to be optimistic about the self-hosted LLMs future. Hope they keep distilling the frontier models until open weight models can match Opus one day. A self-hosted Opus would be amazing.
  - gnz11 6mo ago
    Adapting implies you are still a part of the environment though. AI is on a trajectory to replace you and take you out of the environment.
    - 6mo ago
sdevonoes 6mo ago
Not every change is good, and sometimes we realise too late
- cinntaile 6mo ago
  What is it that worries you about the change that is happening?
  - cjfd 6mo ago
    All kinds of worries are possible. (1) It turns out that all this AI generated stuff is full of bugs and we go back to traditional software development, creating a giant disinvestment and economic downturn. (2) sofware quality going way down. we cannot produce reliable programs anymore. (3) massive energy use makes it impossible to use sustainable energy sources and we wreck the environment every more than we are currently doing. (4) AIs are in the hands of a few big companies that abuse their power. (5) AI becomes smarter than humans and decides that humans are outdated and kills all of us. It obviously depends on how powerful AI is going to become. These scenarios are mutually exclusive because some assume that AI is actually not very powerful and some assume that it is very powerful. I think one of these things happening is not at all unlikely.
    - rowyourboat 6mo ago
      1 and 2 are really only an issue if you vibe code. There's no reason to expect properly reviewed AI assisted code to be any worse than human written code. In fact, in my experience, using LLMs to do a code review is a great asset - of used in addition to human review
  - intended 6mo ago
    People have measurably lower levels of ownership and understanding of AI generated code. The people using GenAI reap a major time and cognitive effort savings, but the task of verification is shifted to the maintainer. In essence, we get the output without the matching mental structures being developed in humans. This is great if you have nothing left to learn, its not that great if you are a newbie, or have low confidence in your skill. > LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. > https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 > https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/ https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...

goatlover 6mo ago

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

contraposit 6mo ago
This is like blaming a knife as being a killer weapon. Social media is inherently good if owners of the platforms allow for good interactions to take place. But given the mismatch between incentives alignment, we don't have nice things.
- dwedge 6mo ago
  Social media is good if owners allow for good is an example of the logical fallacy "begging the question"
  - contraposit 6mo ago
    Also blaming the tool for the crime is some sort of fallacy. I don't know name you can ask AI.
cinntaile 6mo ago
Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo. People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it will affect anything. The genie is out of the bottle, AI is here to stay. You either adapt or you will slowly wither away.
- dwedge 6mo ago
  It reminds me of something I read on mastodon: "genie doesn't go back in the bottle say AI promoters while the industry spends a trillion dollars a year to try to keep the genie out of the bottle"
  - cinntaile 6mo ago
    Do you think the genie will go back in the bottle and why?
    - matheusmoreira 6mo ago
      It's certainly possible. All that is required is for AIs to become more expensive than humans. Developing projects on a $100 Claude Code subscription is a lot of fun. I bet people would simply go back to hiring human developers if that subscription cost $10,000 instead.
      - lrvick 6mo ago
        Except you can pay $2500 once for a Strix Halo and have your own Claude Code hosted at home for free with unlimited tokens on 400w.
        matheusmoreira 6mo ago
        Well, I hope you're right. I want to be optimistic about the self-hosted LLMs future. Hope they keep distilling the frontier models until open weight models can match Opus one day. A self-hosted Opus would be amazing.
- gnz11 6mo ago
  Adapting implies you are still a part of the environment though. AI is on a trajectory to replace you and take you out of the environment.
  - 6mo ago

sdevonoes 6mo ago

Not every change is good, and sometimes we realise too late

cinntaile 6mo ago
What is it that worries you about the change that is happening?
- cjfd 6mo ago
  All kinds of worries are possible. (1) It turns out that all this AI generated stuff is full of bugs and we go back to traditional software development, creating a giant disinvestment and economic downturn. (2) sofware quality going way down. we cannot produce reliable programs anymore. (3) massive energy use makes it impossible to use sustainable energy sources and we wreck the environment every more than we are currently doing. (4) AIs are in the hands of a few big companies that abuse their power. (5) AI becomes smarter than humans and decides that humans are outdated and kills all of us. It obviously depends on how powerful AI is going to become. These scenarios are mutually exclusive because some assume that AI is actually not very powerful and some assume that it is very powerful. I think one of these things happening is not at all unlikely.
  - rowyourboat 6mo ago
    1 and 2 are really only an issue if you vibe code. There's no reason to expect properly reviewed AI assisted code to be any worse than human written code. In fact, in my experience, using LLMs to do a code review is a great asset - of used in addition to human review
- intended 6mo ago
  People have measurably lower levels of ownership and understanding of AI generated code. The people using GenAI reap a major time and cognitive effort savings, but the task of verification is shifted to the maintainer. In essence, we get the output without the matching mental structures being developed in humans. This is great if you have nothing left to learn, its not that great if you are a newbie, or have low confidence in your skill. > LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. > https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 > https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/ https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...