Because of studies like https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622:

Overall, we find that participants who had access to an AI assistant based on OpenAI's codex-davinci-002 model wrote significantly less secure code than those without access. Additionally, participants with access to an AI assistant were more likely to believe they wrote secure code than those without access to the AI assistant.

It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

Seems like this is a good argument for specialization. Have AI make bad but fast code, pay specialty people to improve and make it secure when needed. My 2026 Furby with no connection to the outside world doesn't need secure code, it just needs to make kids smile.

There's also the issue of people now flooding the internet with AI generated tutorials and documentation, making things even harder. I managed to botch the Linux on my Raspberry Pi so hard I couldn't fix it easily, all thanks to a crappy AI generated tutorial on adding to path that I didn't immediately spot.

With art, it can't really be controlled enough to be useful for anything much beyond spam machine, but spammers only care about social media clout and/or ad revenue.

It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

The industrial revolution called, they want their argument against the use of automated looms back.

Reads like a rant against the industrial revolution. "The industry is only concerned about replacing workers with steam engines!"

They're called programmers, and it's faster and less expensive all around to just have humans do it better the first time.

I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

I''m curious about the strong negative feelings towards AI and LLMs. While I don't defend them, I see their usefulness, especially in coding. Is the backlash due to media narratives about AI replacing software engineers? Or is it the theft of training material without attribution? I want to understand why this topic evokes such emotion and why discussions often focus on negativity rather than control, safety, or advancements.

It's either broken and not capable or takes jobs.

You can't be both useless and destroying jobs at the same time

• Useless fake spam content.
• Posting AI slop ruins the "social" part of social media. You're not reading real human thoughts anymore, just statistically plausible words.
• Same with machine-generated "art". What's the point?
• AI companies are leeches; they steal work for the purpose of undercutting the original creators with derivative content.
• Vibe coders produce utter garbage that nobody, especially not themselves understands, and somehow are smug about it.
• A lot of AI stuff is a useless waste of resources.

Most of the hate is justified IMO, but a couple weeks ago I died on the hill arguing that an LLM can be useful as a code documentation search engine. Once the train started, even a reply that thought software libraries contain books got upvotes.

The capitalists owning the AI thanking you for fighting on their side.

On top of everything else people mentioned, it's so profoundly stupid to me that AI is being pushed to take my summary of a message and turn it into an email, only for AI to then take those emails and spit out a summary again.

At that point just let me ditch the formality and send over the summary in the first place.

But more generally, I don't have an issue with "AI" just generative AI. And I have a huge issue with it being touted as this Oracle of knowledge when it isn't. It's dangerous to view it that way. Right now we're "okay" at differentiating real information from hallucinations, but so many people aren't and it will just get worse as people get complacent and AI gets better at hiding.

Part of this is the natural evolution of techology and I'm sure the situation will improve, but it's being pushed so hard in the meantime and making the problem worse.

The first Chat GPT models were kept private for being too dangerous, and they weren't even as "good" as the modern ones. I wish we could go back to those days.

Have you talked to any programmers about this? I know several who, in the past 6 months alone, have completely changed their view on exactly how effective AI is in automating parts of their coding. Not only are they using it, they are paying to use it because it gives them a personal return on investment...but you know, you can keep using that push lawnmower, just don't complain when the kids next door run circles around you at a quarter the cost.

Have you talked to any programmers about this? I know several who, in the past 6 months alone, have completely changed their view on exactly how effective AI is in automating parts of their coding. Not only are they using it, they are paying to use it because it gives them a personal return on investment...but you know, you can keep using that push lawnmower, just don't complain when the kids next door run circles around you at a quarter the cost.

Lots of assumptions there. In case you actually care, I don't think any one company should be allowed to own the base system that allows AI to function, especially if it's trained off of public content or content owned by other groups, but that's kind of immaterial here. It seems insane to villainize a technology because of who might make money off of it. These are two separate arguments (and frankly, they historically have the opposite benefactors from what you would expect).

Prior to the industrial revolution, weaving was done by hand, making all cloth expensive or the result of sweatshops (and it was still comparatively expensive as opposed to today). Case in point, you can find many pieces of historical worker clothing that was specifically made using every piece of a rectangular piece of fabric because you did not want to waste any little bit (today it's common for people to throw any scraps away because they don't like the section of pattern).

With the advent of automated looms several things happened:

• the skilled workers who could operate the looms quickly were put out of a job because the machine could do things much faster, although it required a few specialized operators to set up and repair the equipment.
• the owners of the fabric mills that couldn't afford to upgrade either died out or specialized in fabrics that could not be made by the machines (which set up an arms race of sorts where the machine builders kept improving things)
• the quality of fabric went down: when it was previously possible to have different structures of fabric with just a simple order to the worker, it took a while for machines to do something other than a simple weave (actually it took the work of Ada Lovelace, and see above mentioned arms race), and looms even today require a different range of threads than what can be hand woven, but...
• the cost went down so much that the accessibility went through the roof. Suddenly the average pauper COULD afford to clothe their entire family with a weeks worth of clothes. New industries cropped up. Health and economic mobility soared.

This is a huge oversimplification, but history is well known to repeat itself due to human nature. Follow the bullets above with today's arguments against AI and you will see an often ignored end result: humanity can grow to have more time and resources to improve the health and wellness of our population IF we use the tools. You can choose to complain that the contract worker isn't going to get paid his equivalent of $5/hr for spending 2 weeks arguing back and forth about a dog logo for a new pet store, but I am going to celebrate the person who realizes they can automate a system to find new business filings and approach every new business in their area with a package of 20 logos each that were AI generated using unique prompts from their experience in logo design all while reducing their workload and making more money.

Have you talked to any programmers about this? I know several who, in the past 6 months alone, have completely changed their view on exactly how effective AI is in automating parts of their coding. Not only are they using it, they are paying to use it because it gives them a personal return on investment...but you know, you can keep using that push lawnmower, just don't complain when the kids next door run circles around you at a quarter the cost.