GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social)
grapheneos.social
@bekkaboo@girlcock.club Linux itself is heavily using AI models. Therefore, every Linux distribution moving to recent kernel versions is heavily built on top of using AI models. Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects. It's unclear what would be accomplished by banning AI for a tiny portion of the code while continuing to use Linux, AOSP, Chromium and hundreds of other projects heavily using it. We'd still be benefiting from it.

GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.

We do not understand where you’re coming from or why you’re so incredibly angry with us. It’s not justified and does not make sense.

  • badgermurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    The problem you’re encountering is that every human defines evil differently. Those disagreeing with you seem to define evil to include “detrimental to civilized society”, which does at least come from an objective premise, even if you don’t agree with the assessment.

    Through that lens, the good it does for people simply cannot outweigh the bad, because they believe the bad to include the end of society. That is what you’re arguing against, and why people with that view are so energized and are unmoved by the counter-arguments. If you want to change their minds, you would first have to convince them their premise is false, not just their conclusion.

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zipEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      Well, tbh, if someone has an opinion that isn’t swayable by facts, why should I take that person seriously? It’s like talking with religious nutjobs. They already have all “answers”.

      The facts are clear, relatively simple, and accessible by everyone. And “evil” is generally considered bad. But LLMs are not just “that precise one thing” that could be declared evil. It’s a concept. The application of it changes the good/evil attribution. Chatbot? Obviously bad. Helping to determine cancer in a Patient? Good. Etc.

      If people don’t WANT to argue because they already joined a “AI is the devil”-cult, so be it. Not my job to convince anyone of anything 😊

      • badgermurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        Their opinions may be swayable by facts, but not just any facts. You would need to present facts that confirm that their specific objections are unfounded or overblown.

        Facts like “its here to stay” and “it allows you to write more code in less time”, etc, do not address their objections. Stating to them the ways in which it is good does nothing to counter their conception of the ways in which it is bad.

        • Dyskolos@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          11 hours ago

          And that’s the nonsense about it. We’re not talking about cars or such, but a general concept. And most likely take one or two specific applications of it and use it as a definition of the thing itself. And even with cars you couldn’t condemned them because tanks exists, and ignore ambulances or such.

          Also, it’s usually the exact same group that also mostly uses products of what they hate so much. Microsoft, google, Facebook or any us-american bigtec. If LLMs would be as bad as they say it is, stop funding it. Simple. Really really simple. I don’t use any of those, so it’s possible to actually protest besides big word and vote by wallet.