Some people aren’t receptive to current implementations, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss this technology here. A Marxist forum should be a place where we can talk about new technology in a rational way, and educate people who have reactionary views on it.
Of course the topic could and should be discussed, if it’s done in an honest and rational manner. There is no disagreement here.
This is however not what I have been seeing over the past months. Even this very post, I know you haven’t written the article’s headline yourself, but you can see that it’s clearly antagonistic for no good reason.
You can imagine this with any other topic. If there are people who you are sympathetic to and are part of your cause but might have an inaccurate or ‘reactionary’ view to something, you would not meet them with antagonism. Especially since we’re not talking about a case of bigotry here or other views or actions that harm others.
We should also not infer from people disliking something that they have ‘reactionary’ views. One could dislike spice grinders and prefer a mortar and pestle, that doesn’t make them a primitivist. I would also understand if they get frustrated if they’re constantly bombarded with “here’s why spice grinders are better and you’re an idiot if you’re not using one” type posts.
I think the article is mostly sensible, and it addresses common tropes that get thrown around regarding using LLMs for coding. What the author describes largely matches my own experience. Surely we can do better than judging articles solely based on the headline. Meanwhile, people can just skip reading the article if it irks them. I don’t know why every single time there’s a post regarding AI there needs to be struggle session about it.
The point is not judging the content of the article on the headline, it’s the needlessly antagonistic phrasing of it.
I am expressing that it is very understandable that people scrolling would be bothered by seeing such posts.
As for the struggle sessions, the topic is quite controversial to begin with, and being honest, as a lurker of these posts for quite some time now, I never liked the manner in which you replied to people disagreeing in the comments. It’s no surprise that these posts often turn hostile and unproductive.
It’s also important to realise that each post does not happen on an island, there’s historical context in the community and instance. People being irked by one post and choosing to comment something have probably seen 3-4 other posts in the previous weeks that also annoyed them, and might reply with a tone of frustration as a result.
Sometimes, on a random meme, there is a bunch of hostile “you used a LLM to make the image for this meme, therefore you are an inhuman monster” comments. Its them who started the hostility, and we won’t just sit there and take it from a bunch of IP crusaders who dehumanize us by equating us to machines.
That is not always the case, you need to admit that. I have had plenty of interactions with you and sometimes you do not post constructively. You did it right herehttps://lemmygrad.ml/post/8081058/6476868
Yeah, I can put up with only so much trolling. I make an effort to be constructive, and when people can’t acknowledge basic things like the fact that Django has boilerplate, it becomes pointless to continue.
Nah, I’ve had plenty of disagreements with people where we were able to have a coherent discussion without anybody lashing out. What I don’t take well to is low effort trolling.
Where are these examples? How have any of my replies been “low effort”? Especially my code review that I did. Especially since your code, you just cranked out with an LLM and pasted, while I went through and went line by line and showed how it is not optimal. If anything I think this demonstrates my problem with LLMs and AI slop. The effort required to show you why it is wrong takes a lot more than it takes you to just say “everyone who disagrees with me is a low effort troll”.
So why does it always seem to be that anyone who is making “reactionary statements that aren’t rooted in material analysis” is basically just someone who doesn’t agree with your conclusions? Are you the only one who is right?
Some people aren’t receptive to current implementations, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss this technology here. A Marxist forum should be a place where we can talk about new technology in a rational way, and educate people who have reactionary views on it.
Of course the topic could and should be discussed, if it’s done in an honest and rational manner. There is no disagreement here. This is however not what I have been seeing over the past months. Even this very post, I know you haven’t written the article’s headline yourself, but you can see that it’s clearly antagonistic for no good reason.
You can imagine this with any other topic. If there are people who you are sympathetic to and are part of your cause but might have an inaccurate or ‘reactionary’ view to something, you would not meet them with antagonism. Especially since we’re not talking about a case of bigotry here or other views or actions that harm others.
We should also not infer from people disliking something that they have ‘reactionary’ views. One could dislike spice grinders and prefer a mortar and pestle, that doesn’t make them a primitivist. I would also understand if they get frustrated if they’re constantly bombarded with “here’s why spice grinders are better and you’re an idiot if you’re not using one” type posts.
I think the article is mostly sensible, and it addresses common tropes that get thrown around regarding using LLMs for coding. What the author describes largely matches my own experience. Surely we can do better than judging articles solely based on the headline. Meanwhile, people can just skip reading the article if it irks them. I don’t know why every single time there’s a post regarding AI there needs to be struggle session about it.
The point is not judging the content of the article on the headline, it’s the needlessly antagonistic phrasing of it. I am expressing that it is very understandable that people scrolling would be bothered by seeing such posts.
As for the struggle sessions, the topic is quite controversial to begin with, and being honest, as a lurker of these posts for quite some time now, I never liked the manner in which you replied to people disagreeing in the comments. It’s no surprise that these posts often turn hostile and unproductive. It’s also important to realise that each post does not happen on an island, there’s historical context in the community and instance. People being irked by one post and choosing to comment something have probably seen 3-4 other posts in the previous weeks that also annoyed them, and might reply with a tone of frustration as a result.
Sometimes, on a random meme, there is a bunch of hostile “you used a LLM to make the image for this meme, therefore you are an inhuman monster” comments. Its them who started the hostility, and we won’t just sit there and take it from a bunch of IP crusaders who dehumanize us by equating us to machines.
I put effort into replying to people constructively and try to spend the time to explain my position on the subject.
That is not always the case, you need to admit that. I have had plenty of interactions with you and sometimes you do not post constructively. You did it right here https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8081058/6476868
Yeah, I can put up with only so much trolling. I make an effort to be constructive, and when people can’t acknowledge basic things like the fact that Django has boilerplate, it becomes pointless to continue.
I am glad that taking a look at your code, spending time examining it with a very serious, professional code review is considered “trolling”.
Is your definition of “trolling” anyone who disagrees with you, even those that put serious thought and time into their replies?
My definition of trolling is you looking at over 40 lines of boilerplate and asking where is the boilerplate.
And here! https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8081058/6477222
The problem is whenever someone disagrees with you, you have a tendency to lash out.
Nah, I’ve had plenty of disagreements with people where we were able to have a coherent discussion without anybody lashing out. What I don’t take well to is low effort trolling.
Where are these examples? How have any of my replies been “low effort”? Especially my code review that I did. Especially since your code, you just cranked out with an LLM and pasted, while I went through and went line by line and showed how it is not optimal. If anything I think this demonstrates my problem with LLMs and AI slop. The effort required to show you why it is wrong takes a lot more than it takes you to just say “everyone who disagrees with me is a low effort troll”.
So basically anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is reactionary. Got it.
How do you square that view with your comment here? https://lemmygrad.ml/post/8081058/6478824
Nope, just people who make reactionary statements that aren’t rooted in material analysis.
So why does it always seem to be that anyone who is making “reactionary statements that aren’t rooted in material analysis” is basically just someone who doesn’t agree with your conclusions? Are you the only one who is right?
It’s not, that’s just a straw man you’re building here.
Every accusation is a confession
Show me an actual constructive argument by the AI bad crowd in this thread that doesn’t fit that description.
So now you’re passive aggressively saying that none of my arguments are constructive? That I’m just trolling?
I’ve addressed the actual points you made in detail and with examples.
“My own comments are a straw man”
Incredible.
When you definitely understand what straw manning is.