Post by @Mikina@programming.dev

2026-10-18 18:09 UTC

Tbh I trusted him up until the point where he compared AI to compilers. That’s just absolutely crutial misunderstanding where the issues with AI code lies. Comparing using compiler to code, vs using AI to code, is so immensly stupid that I have started doubting him. Not because I don’t trust in his skill, but because AI is addicting and dealing with additction/risk of psychosis responsibly takes an entirely different skillset. And resorting to toxicity when defending AI with absolutely bonkers arguments, like reducing it’s risk to “ShOuLd We AlSo bAn CoMpIlErS? WrItE iN aSeMbLy!!” is not a good sign that he is handling it well.

Replies (2)

@ulterno@programming.dev 2026-10-20 09:30

WrItE iN aSeMbLy!! What!! You would use an assembler to make binaries to run on a general purpose machine code interpreter instead of using an atomic knife and a salt-accelerator to write the instructions on a silicon die? Albsoluridonculoustrous!

Open ##5158484
@bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de 2026-11-09 22:07

I don’t think it’s actual misunderstanding, it’s ignoring the real issues. He is focusing only on the technical side of the problem (as if that’s the only criticism people have about AI) and I fear his pretending there’s no ethical, societal and economic problems is deliberate - as opposed to an oversight. If you look at the number of influential former AI critics/skeptics recently changing their tune like Linus, it looks to me like they are simply all buying bought up.

Open ##5511372