I know it’s early, but so far y’all just throwin’ rocks. No intelligent criticism whatsoever of the content you just read (you did read it, right?) - nothing but low-effort jeers. Linus is saying he expects high quality work and doesn’t accept a shotgun zero-tolerance mindset against how it’s produced. What, in concrete terms, is actually wrong with that?
I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.
People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.
Why would people read it? There is giant mud fight happening between idiots believing AI is the devil and idiots believing AI is their new lord and savior. And like most morons only interested in that kind of team sport they already picked their side to cheer for. No actual arguments or thinking required.
No, I stand beside the two sides rolling my eyes every single time another “Look! Linus is criticising AI use in the kernel! He’s fighting the devil alongside us!!” / “Look, Linus is using AI! He got converted to the one true faith!!” article gets published. Which is every other day at the moment, because it’s really important to keep the main sport event going so the idiots don’t lose interest or –even worse– start to actually think for themselves.
No, calling pigs rolling around in the mud pigs is neither an insult nor taking part in the strange mud bath ritual.
But as you seem to be bad with analogies:
Spouting ideology for the sake of it is bullshit no matter which side does it. Pitting your ideological dogmas against each other is not a discussion. If that’s your thing start a new religion (that’s not even far off from some of the influencer and tech-bro bullshit nowadays anyway…).
Most people are sick of the always same “AI is the evil and will destroy us all!”, “No, you need to embrace our saviour AI that will save us all or get left behind!” idiocy repeated a million times in slightly different spelling. You need to be absolutely lost in a delusion to miss the costantly alternating pattern of pro-AI / anti-AI posts in social and other media pushed to keep engagement going. Ffs… when it’s about the Linux kernel it’s even worse and even more obvious when we are bombarded with alternating pro- and anti-AI statements from the same single person. People can’t be that dense. So why pretend that at this point it’s something else but induced insanity.
That’s the false dichotomy gospel of social media, that says only two extreme polar opposite opinions are possible on any issue, and anyone who claims otherwise is secretly on whichever side is wrong. But I agree, most controversial discussions are nothing but mud fights because few people bother to think about the nuances of an issue. They take in minimal information and make a value judgement based mostly on preconceptions, so they can scroll on to the next item as fast as possible.
I know it’s early, but so far y’all just throwin’ rocks. No intelligent criticism whatsoever of the content you just read (you did read it, right?) - nothing but low-effort jeers. Linus is saying he expects high quality work and doesn’t accept a shotgun zero-tolerance mindset against how it’s produced. What, in concrete terms, is actually wrong with that?
Some things deserve zero tolerance IMO
Some things do, but work technique isn’t one of them.
What about a tool that killed someone every time you used it? Or every ten times you used it? There’s a line somewhere, right?
I already agreed some things deserve zero tolerance, so obviously there’s a line. If AI killed someone or gave the user shooting pains every ten times it was used then I would call it a failed attempt to make a tool. But the relevance of this escapes me.
My argument is that the environmental costs of AI, not to mention the knock-on effects of the societal change it incurs, lead to people dying.
You are conflating environmental costs of AI with willful destruction to make money.
AI data centers don’t need to use giant amounts of water. They do because assholes can get away with saying “fuck the people and environment” by paying off other assholes in governing positions to not regulate them.
AI data center’s electricity usage is not a problem either. We will see a massive increase in demand anyway as electrification is actually a big step in decarbonisation. What is a problem are again assholes in the fossil fuel industry that lobby the already mentioned corrupt assholes in government to fight renewable energy and its infrastructure that is clean and available in abundance.
If you believe that AI is a cause for the problem and not just a pretense and that they would not have found (actually manufacture, just like they manufactured this insane “Ai will solve everything”-bubble) another reason (or dozens) to burn the planet for their profit anyway, you really lost the plot.
So, bring the numbers. Where’s this environmental catastrophe resulting from the use of chatbots?
My $20 per month Claude Code subscription uses about $11 worth of electricity to generate my replies - our damn air conditioner is using near $11 per day to keep the house cool in the summer these days.
Evidence would make that an argument. Without it what you have is a hypothesis. I have a hypothesis that people die from the knock-on effects of social media, but here we are doing it without demonizing ourselves.
Fair enough. I’m not going to follow up with all that just for this comment thread. At least we can agree that some things are bad enough to justify not using.
As I have gone through life, I have decided that just about the only thing that deserves zero tolerance is zero tolerance itself.
No. For an easy example, does fascism deserve tolerance?
First, define fascism.
People will throw the fascism label around for all kinds of things, sometimes justifiably, but more often to over-dramaticize and get attention.
Overly broad over used labels can’t deserve zero tolerance. You might say that murder deserves zero tolerance, but what about murder of a person who is in a position where they are about to murder a large number of other people? Do you enforce your “zero tolerance” by doing the thing you label as “zero tolerance”?
You might say that genocide should be zero tolerance, but again - we’re getting into over-broad over-used poorly defined words. When does killing of members of a certain culture or group become genocide? Clearly, it’s killing more than one - but if the group is a small society of maybe 100 members, is it genocide to kill 50 of them? When the 50 of them are about to murder 1000 others, even though the 1000 are members of a society of millions? What’s the threshold of “about to” when it’s acceptable to take away the “murder” label and kill them anyway?
I won’t, if you need an academical definitions of fascism or genocide to be able to spot and fight them, better go to Reddit or 4chan for this kind of troll-y shit. Fascism is not tolerable, period.
1990 Berlin, I spent the day with a “Kein Fußbreit den Faschisten” punk, he didn’t have his mohawk “up” but he was vehament: “When you see a fascist you must beat him up” - which, to me, is missing the point - bringing yourself down to their level. Of course this was on the actual streets with actual fists, knives, bats, and firebombs where people were actually dying, and worse: being maimed for life - not some idealistic internet ranting.
So, yeah, rant all you like, but even if they are calling themselves Neo-Nazi skinheads all over again, don’t be killing each other on my lawn - thanks.
Why would people read it? There is giant mud fight happening between idiots believing AI is the devil and idiots believing AI is their new lord and savior. And like most morons only interested in that kind of team sport they already picked their side to cheer for. No actual arguments or thinking required.
And you’re here standing in between the two sides, casting mud in both directions and thinking you’re not getting any mud on yourself in the process?
No, I stand beside the two sides rolling my eyes every single time another “Look! Linus is criticising AI use in the kernel! He’s fighting the devil alongside us!!” / “Look, Linus is using AI! He got converted to the one true faith!!” article gets published. Which is every other day at the moment, because it’s really important to keep the main sport event going so the idiots don’t lose interest or –even worse– start to actually think for themselves.
So this:
wasn’t mud-slinging, in your opinion? Calling someone an idiot isn’t an attack?
No, calling pigs rolling around in the mud pigs is neither an insult nor taking part in the strange mud bath ritual.
But as you seem to be bad with analogies:
Spouting ideology for the sake of it is bullshit no matter which side does it. Pitting your ideological dogmas against each other is not a discussion. If that’s your thing start a new religion (that’s not even far off from some of the influencer and tech-bro bullshit nowadays anyway…).
Most people are sick of the always same “AI is the evil and will destroy us all!”, “No, you need to embrace our saviour AI that will save us all or get left behind!” idiocy repeated a million times in slightly different spelling. You need to be absolutely lost in a delusion to miss the costantly alternating pattern of pro-AI / anti-AI posts in social and other media pushed to keep engagement going. Ffs… when it’s about the Linux kernel it’s even worse and even more obvious when we are bombarded with alternating pro- and anti-AI statements from the same single person. People can’t be that dense. So why pretend that at this point it’s something else but induced insanity.
That’s the false dichotomy gospel of social media, that says only two extreme polar opposite opinions are possible on any issue, and anyone who claims otherwise is secretly on whichever side is wrong. But I agree, most controversial discussions are nothing but mud fights because few people bother to think about the nuances of an issue. They take in minimal information and make a value judgement based mostly on preconceptions, so they can scroll on to the next item as fast as possible.
Exactly, the only thing that matters is results.
No. The ethics of how something is produced are material.
The ends don’t justify the means.