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.

Not much to win with.

A fake bubble of broken technology that's not capable of doing what is advertised, it's environmentally destructive, its used for identification and genocide, it threatens and actually takes jobs, and concentrates money and power with the already wealthy.

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.

Also, it should never be used for art. I don’t care if you need to make a logo for a company and A.I. spits out whatever. But real art is about humans expressing something. We don’t value cave paintings because they’re perfect. We value them because someone thousands of years ago made it.

So, that’s something I hate about it. People think it can “democratize” art. Art is already democratized. I have a child’s drawing on my fridge that means more to me than anything at any museum. The beauty of some things is not that it was generated. It’s that someone cared enough to try. I’d rather a misspelled crayon card from my niece than some shit ChatGPT generated.

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

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

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

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

Have you never had a corporate job? A technology can be very much useless while incompetent 'managers' who believe it can do better than humans WILL buy the former to get rid of the latter, even though that's a stupid thing to do, in order to meet their yearly targets and other similar idiotic measures of division/team 'productivity'

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.

And yet AI pulls through and somehow does manage to do both

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

and also chatbot-generated bug reports (like curl) and entire open source projects (i guess for some stupid crypto scheme)

it's not ai taking your job, it's your boss. all they need to believe is that language-shaped noise generator can make it work, doesn't matter if it does (it doesn't). then business either suffers greatly or hires people back (like klarna)

It's a massive new disruptive technology and people are scared of what changes it will bring. AI companies are putting out tons of propaganda both claiming AI can do anything and fear mongering that AI is going to surpass and subjugate us to back up that same narrative.

Also, there is so much focus on democratizing content creation, which is at best a very mixed bag, and little attention is given to collaborative uses (which I think is where AI shines) because it's so much harder to demonstrate, and it demands critical thinking skills and underlying knowledge.

In short, everything AI is hyped as is a lie, and that's all most people see. When you're poking around with it, you're most likely to just ask it to do something for you: write a paper, create a picture, whatever, and the results won't impress anyone actually good at those things, and impress the fuck out of people who don't know any better.

This simultaneously reinforces two things to two different groups: AI is utter garbage and AI is smarter than half the people you know and is going to take all the jobs.

But but, now idea man can vibecode. this shit destroys separation between management and codebase making it perfect antiproductivity tool

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

You're probably not wrong. It's definitely along the same lines... although the repercussions of this particular one will be infinitely greater than those of the industrial revolution.

Also, industrialization made for better products because of better manufacturing processes. I'm by no means sure we can say the same about AI. Maybe some day, but today it's just "an advanced dumbass" considering most real world scenarios.

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.

Its not particularly accurate and then there's the privacy concerns

• 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.