How would you undo the psychosis while still using the thing inducing psychosis??

I write code myself all day, as I have always done

That’s great. If you enjoy it, do what you love

more and more software engineers are finally starting to see the consequences of relying on LLMs for software development.

And they are adapting how they use said LLMs, not ending its use. People are developing and refining it constantly. They will keep refining until they get consistently good results.

Writing code has never been the bottleneck.

The problem is always ultimately with management. But if management is able to give an impossible deadline, and AI is able to meet that deadline, wouldn’t that make a human writing, testing, refining the code the bottleneck? Management could make bad decisions, see the results of those decisions very quickly after AI writes it, and have the AI revise it (wash rinse repeat) much faster than humans could write and revise the same code. To management’s dismay, humans are also more likely to give their opinions about how their idea is unrealistic. Management doesn’t care what you think, they want you to do what they say. And AI does just that. Management’s poor decisions would have even fewer consequences since it could be revised so quickly.

Also in all the places I worked 99% of the code was not copy-pasted.

Yea, it was attempted humor. The classic “copy paste” joke, though I admit it didn’t read well.

AI generated slop

It might be slop now, but we can’t assume it will always be that. If AI gets to a point where large pieces of code can be written almost instantly with zero bugs, then we will definitely have code written almost exclusively by AI. I agree that some of the very complex stuff would actually be cheaper to pay someone than pay the for the computational power for an AI to do it, but that is probably about it.

Whatever people feel about that is totally fair. I am not saying I think it’s better, I just see that is the ultimate outcome. And an outcome I think most of us will live to see in the not so distant future.

These chat bots are spreading psychosis on a scale so massive the damage is gonna take years to undo.

take years to undo

You said it would take years to undo, saying it will be undone. What were you talking about being undone in a thread about code being written by AI, if it wasn’t about undoing code writing AI? If the psychosis is induced by AI, wouldn’t the usage of said AI have to cease?

It doesn’t matter if AI is as good as they claim. Right now, and every new moment, is the worst AI will ever be. Don’t be shortsighted and assume since it can’t currently do X it will never do X. 2GB of RAM was once a lot of RAM. At the time, we would have said what on earth would anyone ever need 32GB of RAM for.

Not to mention who knows how many bugs AI has already found and fixed in Microslops code. It’s already in the thousands, that’s for sure.

And before someone starts throwing insults for me “defending” AI, I am strictly talking about AI as a technology. I am not talking about what the mega corps are doing to create said AI. The legislature needs to be quick to stop these companies from destroying the planet trying to innovate AI the fastest. Despite that, I can still recognize AI as the innovation that it is. There are a lot of things AI does not belong in, but unfortunately writing code is one of the perfect use cases for AI.

It’s funny you think it’s going to be undone. We are not going back to a time where humans type code for any serious commercial product. As they said in the article:

Fowler isn’t saying developers will stop reading code, or that software engineering is done. His point is that manually typing code line by line, in an editor, is becoming the least interesting part of the job.

But there will be a point where very little code is written line by line by humans. Though I suppose most of it was already copy pasted anyway.

Not that this is a legit service, but aren’t the two main options:

• Pay with money
• Pay with ads/tracking

Services cost money. It’s never free. Someone is always paying

He didn’t cause this. But he sure as hell isn’t helping.

And the fact is, not all Americans are tired of it. There are millions of Americans who are perfectly happy with things the way they are.

There will always be a minority that are content with status quo. Though virtually everyone is not happy with how things are. There is just a disagreement on the solution. Dipshit was elected because he was different, and they thought he would fix the problems that plagues the US. And many still think he is helping, somehow…

I don’t understand why you bring guns into this argument

Because it is a tool with a use that is used for bad things, like people are arguing with AI

For most people, LLMs do make it specifically easier to skip learning than to enhance learning. We can see this in practice where teachers are noticing higher grades for homework but lower grades for the final exams.

This is going to be especially true for children. Virtually unrestricted AI should not be accessible to kids. If they have access to AI, it should be one that acts as a teacher or private tutor that will help them learn but not give them the answer. Until we can control AI like that, they shouldn’t have access to it.

But we do not have an easy measurement for adults. We have anecdotal experience and vibes. It’s also entirely up to the person how effective the use of the tool is.

you could say buying a lottery ticket can be both a bad and a good financial decision

This would only be a good comparison if your actions had any impact on your chances of winning. It isn’t random chance how AI is used.

I think a better comparison would be drug usage. Prescription drug usage used properly can turn someone’s life around, objectively improving their life. Obviously abuse of drugs has ruined many lives, and ended many others. We are not saying we should get rid of drugs though.

Drugs are heavily controlled by professionals because of their ability to be abused. It used to be that coke was in soda’s and you could buy opioids over the counter. We learned about their addictive properties and dangers, and they were regulaged.

Perhaps we will some day have a method to control AIs abuse/addiction. It would no doubt look entirely different from controlled substances. Maybe there is a way to have personal accounts only help people learn, and rather that giving them answers it might guide them to learning for themselves. Who knows what this technology might look like in the future

Saying you can do both good and bad with any tool is misleading if the tool makes it easier to do the bad thing

This arguement simply does not hold up. Tools can, and often are, used for things they were not intended for. An effective hammer is going to be made of metal and have a decent heft to it. Having a hammer would also make it much easier to bash in someone’s head, (making it easier to do a bad thing).

A gun is designed to kill people, making people more likely to murder. The only people that have a realistic argent for needing guns are going to be police and military, and of course hunters with rifles.

The biggest problem with AI is how wide of a scope the tool applies to. Most tools have a much more narrow use case. AI is designed to be extremely versatile. You could use it to get customized lesson plans yo help structure your learning. Or you could skip the learning and have it give you the answer. It is a tool either way

Of course he refutes them. He establishes the points to argue against them. The problem is he is setting up a straw man to argue against. I know the whole arguement is about how AI isn’t “just a tool”, except that it is. The difference is how you define a “tool” and he establishef an odd definition of tool to argue against

I do not think their assumptions for the baseline of the article are accurate:

The technology being discussed has no bearing on the attitudes or ideologies of the person holding it: use or non-use is ideologically neutral.

Why does use of a tool need to be ideologically neutral? Why draw this conclusion? Someone refusing to use a hammer would very clearly suggest some sort of ideology for why. In fact, entire religions refuse to use power tools for ideological reasons.

The technology being discussed can be effectively separated from the people using it: nothing can be inferred about a person from the technologies that they use.

You can infer a lot about the tools someone chooses to use.

The technology is used fully consciously: you are always fully aware that you are using a technology and have complete volitional freedom to use a different technology at any time.

I think this was more true prior to computers and the internet, but there are plenty of tools we use unwittingly. The freedom to use a different technology is always a physical possibility, but not always a practical one. If you had to drive a nail, and you had with you a hammer and a rock, you could choose to use the rock if you wanted.

The technology does not influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it: use of the technology doesn’t tend to encourage one course of action over another (“guns don’t kill people, people do”).

Tools have an intended use. They 100% influence the kinds of things likely to be done with it. A hammer is likely to be use to drive nails. A gun is designed to kill. While the gun doesn’t “kill people”, it sure makes it a hell of a lot easier… because that’s what it was designed to do. Just like a hammer makes it a lot easier to drive a nail.

The consequence of these statements being true is that the only valid criticism of a tool or technology becomes how well it performs the task that it’s designed to perform. You cannot, for example, say that a tool teaches bad habits, because if it isn’t explicitly a teaching tool what it teaches people becomes out-of-bounds for discussion.

The problem is they were never thought to be true. This is based on a false premise.

Tools absolutely do teach bad habits. Especially when you consider a cell phone a tool, or a computer a tool. We often are making a trade off using tools, but many times we consider those trade offs worth it.

If you have a power drill that dies, most people aren’t grabbing a screwdriver and manually screwing in every screw for a wood working project. The pros of the power drill are the massive difference in speed, and removing the physical strain on your muscles and joints that can do serious damage over time. The major con is now you are beholden to a company to purchase a power tool from. If it’s battery powered, you have to make sure you have their battery and their charger, and also have to purchase replacements if those ever die. Obviously the tradeoff is worth it to most with a power drill vs screwdriver (and nobody is considering using your bare hands), but there absolutely is a tradeoff and we can discuss that when discussing tools.

A common refrain when critiquing specific technologies in this way is that engineers will say that a given technology is “just a tool”

That is only if the critique about the technologies is about its morality.

When someone says “AI is just a tool” they are actually saying it can enable people to do very good or very bad things. People might respond with “AI is just a tool” if someone says AI is evil, because machine learning is not evil, it is a technology.

It’s also worth noting, that just because it’s a tool does not mean everyone should have access to it. There are plenty of tools that are restricted to specialists by law, or controlled more heavily. They are still tools, but they are tools that can cause a lot of harm if used incorrectly.

I did not read the entire article because it started off with these false premises. I also recognize that most people will not read everything I have written, and that’s fine as well.

Motorola will not ship the phone with grapheneOS. In the linked article:

The upcoming Moto devices won’t ship with GrapheneOS

Not out of the box, but fully supported: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/motorolas-grapheneos-phones-will-launch-in-2027-priced-higher-than-pixels/

I am on a Lenovo phone right now, purchased in the US of A. Motorola is owned by Lenovo, so I’m just saying I have a Motorola

Bill Wurtz channel isn’t dead. He just spends a lot of time on his videos

Do you get insurance through your job? Also, taxes would be a nightmare

Rare does not mean good. I could write a novel, and it would be fucking atrocious. If I released 5 copies, it would be extremely rare, but it wouldn’t be worth shit.

They would only need a single copy of each book. They aren’t trying to get all possible copies to prevent others from getting them. They are trying to train their AI as quickly and cheaply as possible

Except when they are digitized and made publicly avaiable