Hacker News

points by holistio 1 day ago | 0 comments

This AI policy is so utterly backwards and stupid I don't even have a nicer way of saying it.

[–] alpaca128 1 day ago

You could ask your favorite LLM to come up with a nicer way of saying it.

[–] g-b-r 1 day ago

Just vibecode your own OS no?

Why do vihecoders still care of other people's software?

[–] ChickeNES 1 day ago

> Just vibecode your own OS no?

Why stop at just one?

[–] aloisdg 1 day ago

Why do they still care of software at all?

[–] 0c3ca83 1 day ago

I don't think they do. They just care about owning shiny things.

If you care about software (or math, or art, or literature, or any other aspect of human creativity), AI is at best like hiring someone to solve jigsaw puzzles for you.

[–] rfgplk 1 day ago

Tbh it makes sense if you want a truly LLM-output free project. I can respect it.

[–] 0c3ca83 1 day ago

Interesting response in light of your previous post, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48197191

You complain an the shit future we're building. Someone says fuck you to your dystopia and starts explicitly weeding it out, and you call it backwards.

[–] holistio 1 day ago

I see why you see it as contradiction. I guess we've all been through a lot of contradictory feelings these past one or two years.

I just feel like eliminating LLM output is (1) not feasible (2) not the right solution to the problem.

[–] 0c3ca83 1 day ago

As far as I can tell, either LLMs naturally fail to be viable, we collectively decide to put a stop to it, or we end up in one of several dystopias.

My bet is that we end up building an awful outcome for nearly humans, which means that trying to put a stop to it is a duty, even if it's likely to fail. I feel the same about climate change -- it's likely that we're going to fail to keep much of earth habitable, but it's not morally acceptable to stop trying.

[–] holistio 1 day ago

I now feel like the efforts put into trying to stop it are wasted and the people wasting these efforts are smart enough that they could instead be trying to steer the whole thing in a better direction.

Ignorance won't help us. I agree with the negatives, I just feel like this approach is backwards.

[–] 0c3ca83 1 day ago

In which direction would you steer a house fire to lead to a better outcome?

There's no good endpoint for people if AI succeeds, it's that simple. It doesn't matter how many people get to roast marshmallows as the place burns.

[–] rfgplk 1 day ago

I'm a hardcore LLM booster but I agree that there's a place for LLM-free projects. In fact human generated code is still superior to even frontier LLM generated code, as long as you're willing take a massive productivity penalty.

[–] mrob 1 day ago

I'm of the opinion that improved developer productivity has been a net negative for at least a decade. Regardless of my opinion of LLMs, I don't want it any easier for people to add more antifeatures and pointless changes.

[–] rootnod3 1 day ago

Gotta give the AIs some new original material to learn from, eh?