Linus Torvalds is at the top. He's a great programmer and he doesn't have to worry about the negative effects of AI. He can take just the good parts. But humanity as a whole cannot do that. He's missing the point.

It's incredible that Apple would think that many users would even want this trash on their hard drives.

If so much of society is constrained by arms races to integrate technology further into life, then I don't think democracy even exists any more. For instance, what if 80% of people vote that AI shouldn't exist...it still would because of the prisoner's dilemma. Too many instances of the prisoner's dilemma preclude democracy.

There's something real nice about having a single, physical album and having to take the effort to put it in the player. There are hundreds of great CD players on eBay too. There's an investment in putting the CD in and experiencing an entire album. I think we're hardwired to understand that, and it can't be replaced by digital streaming, no matter how it's programmed.

> He understands that ideologues only make technical endeavors worse, and he's is correctly inviting people to prove him wrong.

Actually, from what I've seen, we *SHOULD* make technical endeavors worse. If they were significantly worse we might not have invented AI in the first place, and that would be a better world.

I don't, because there always have to be exceptions. Companies as destructive as AI companies should be treated separately, just like killers are arrested but that doesn't mean that everyone will be thrown in jail, after all.

This could have been done years ago but it's much easier now. The ease and power that AI offers is unprecedented and that's precisely its problem. Due to its local nature it can't be regulated either. This is why AI has crossed the threshhold as a technology that should not be used and it should be banned with severe penalties. We simply cannot handle this level of power.

The only reason people use AI is the prisoner's dilemma. It's worthless for us and every data center should be blocked, and their companies rendered bankrupt.

Even more rigorous standards should be applied to AI due to the way people have been conditioned to trust the previously, relatively deterministic output of machines.

I read it and it sounds like the only thing it does is address the most immediate problems caused by AI and sidesteps all the long-term consequences. Like humans always do.

> Open source does need to embrace AI coding otherwise it will become irrelevant

No, I don't think so. A well-crafted program that works is so rare that if you can make one, it will stand out. One does not need AI to do so.

It's like photography. We've got all these tools in photography to remove noise that use machine learning and...one thing I've noticed is that the frequency of beautiful photos hasn't gone up, at all. Just the frequency of average, mediocre photos with less noise.

One does not need AI to reach the heights of something truly useful.

We are going to burn in hell, literally, for this frivolous use of energy. It's insane this world, I hate it. It's absolutel asinine - we had everything we needed to make decent entertainment and stories and we're ruining it with AI.

Surplus is a bad thing for humanity. I hate this.

I don't think Star Trek makes sense any more. It was a show about tech optimism, whereas it's now clear that technology is now more harmful than good. It's not even an envisioning of a better future. It's a portrayal of an impossible future. So I think it's run its course.

But at the same time it also increases the proliferation of new designs, which causes too much efficiency in production.