5 ms·

This should be the top comment. I think it's pretty sad that he even had to write it. Quite a lot of judgement from people who aren't paying his bills.

dnnddidiej 5mo ago
The title at least sounds less like judgement and more analysis and more about AI assistance (and claude in particular) than rsync. Maybe I am too used to postmortems!
- el_io 5mo ago
  I think they're talking about the whole twitter and github issue things.
Laurel1234 5mo ago
Yeah a big reason you see so much pushback on clanker slop is that it's having (and there was certainly the expectation of it having) a negative impact on the ability of plenty of people to pay their bills.
- varispeed 5mo ago
  also people calling all AI is shite, might not have used top tier models. They put $20, tried Sonnet, got sloppy code and called it a day.
- matheusmoreira 5mo ago
  Nice to know we've got slurs for LLMs and their users now. Very nice.
  - Laurel1234 5mo ago
    It's not a slur, clankers ain't people.
    - rickydroll 5mo ago
      If corporations can be people, there is no reason why AI can't be considered a person.
      - noddybear 5mo ago
        Nobody human considers a corporation to be a person. It is merely a legal expedient.
        rickydroll 5mo ago
        I used to think that until I did a little digging into it. Specifically, corporations are considered legal persons because they are separate legal entities, thereby creating a wall between your personal affairs and your business. It protects your personal assets from any liabilities, debts, or lawsuits. Also, since it's a separate entity, its lifetime is not tied to the owner. So if the owner dies, their shares are inherited by somebody else, and the company keeps operating. It helps in raising money for business operations. A corporation raises capital by issuing and selling shares of stock. However, if a physical person did that, I think it would be called indentured servitude.
        advael 5mo ago
        I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood
        rickydroll 5mo ago
        Yes, it does conflict with my own concept of personhood. I forgot to add that to my comment. I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like a person in the law, except where it's different. The problem is that we haven't created a clear enough distinction between a natural person and a legal person. In many cases, corporations have rights but not the responsibility. For example, they have speech rights, but they don't go to jail when the corporation commits a crime. The judicial inequalities between ordinary people and rich people are even greater between natural persons and corporations.

dnnddidiej 5mo ago

The title at least sounds less like judgement and more analysis and more about AI assistance (and claude in particular) than rsync. Maybe I am too used to postmortems!

el_io 5mo ago
I think they're talking about the whole twitter and github issue things.

Laurel1234 5mo ago

Yeah a big reason you see so much pushback on clanker slop is that it's having (and there was certainly the expectation of it having) a negative impact on the ability of plenty of people to pay their bills.

varispeed 5mo ago
also people calling all AI is shite, might not have used top tier models. They put $20, tried Sonnet, got sloppy code and called it a day.
matheusmoreira 5mo ago
Nice to know we've got slurs for LLMs and their users now. Very nice.
- Laurel1234 5mo ago
  It's not a slur, clankers ain't people.
  - rickydroll 5mo ago
    If corporations can be people, there is no reason why AI can't be considered a person.
    - noddybear 5mo ago
      Nobody human considers a corporation to be a person. It is merely a legal expedient.
      - rickydroll 5mo ago
        I used to think that until I did a little digging into it. Specifically, corporations are considered legal persons because they are separate legal entities, thereby creating a wall between your personal affairs and your business. It protects your personal assets from any liabilities, debts, or lawsuits. Also, since it's a separate entity, its lifetime is not tied to the owner. So if the owner dies, their shares are inherited by somebody else, and the company keeps operating. It helps in raising money for business operations. A corporation raises capital by issuing and selling shares of stock. However, if a physical person did that, I think it would be called indentured servitude.
        advael 5mo ago
        I'm confused about why you believe this contrasts with what the above poster said. You've described a bunch of practical reasons why this is legally expedient and also at least one that seems to contrast with your own concept of personhood
        rickydroll 5mo ago
        Yes, it does conflict with my own concept of personhood. I forgot to add that to my comment. I was trying to show that it is not "merely a legal expedient", that corporate personhood had a specific purpose, and that it differed from a real person. I think that the confusion about legal personhood in corporations comes from how lawyers explain its existence. A couple of lawyers I've had explained it as, it's just like a person in the law, except where it's different. The problem is that we haven't created a clear enough distinction between a natural person and a legal person. In many cases, corporations have rights but not the responsibility. For example, they have speech rights, but they don't go to jail when the corporation commits a crime. The judicial inequalities between ordinary people and rich people are even greater between natural persons and corporations.