Subheadline: "Kernel maintainers stop asking who used AI, as long as the code is good"

[EDIT] Seems like a sensible position amid the storm of hype and doomerism, if you ask me.

The other difference is that Oppenheimer at least felt terror and remorse. The AI bros are saying "what we built might end the world but, lol, whatever."

That's known as the argument from authority fallacy.

The public chattered about the "electronic brains" of the 1950s-1960s, there were profound, sweeping changes that were impossible to ignore, and many professions were obsoleted. However, the profound, sweeping changes weren't where and how the futurists and influencers proclaimed they were going to be and those specialists doing work not amenable to mainframe-ization were still busily employed.

So the thoroughly obnoxious insistence by the current AI snake oil salesmen that [EDIT] that they know the where the future lies and that we must follow their guidance (calculated to benefit themselves and likely wrong anyway) or be "left behind" wears thin. Go follow your own path and leave others to follow theirs in peace.

Oh I'm sure that many of the current predictions on the future are absolutely wrong in many ways; I'm just stating the fact that the technology itself is certainly having an impact and will have a much greater impact into the future.

Like, what? Solaris/SunOS, DEC Ultrix/Tru64, AIX, HP-UX, Xenix, etc., all with big bad monopolist AT&T's UNIX as their grandpappy. UNIX was corporate to the hilt.

Corporate, sure, but painting DEC, (old) HP, and Sun with the same brush as AT&T, IBM, and Microsoft just because they sold proprietary, but generally well-documented and reliable hardware and software at whatever prices the market would bear seems unfair.

Yes, why would someone want to uncover a person's income and email from an audience of likely high net worth individuals? Gosh, such a mystery.

"Nothing leaves your browser. No account needed to look."

You really think someone would do that? Just go on the internet and tell lies?

How about actually using the damn site instead of taking its word (some boilerplate the person behind it might not have ever read)? When you submit a net worth:

  POST https://www.keepingup.com/api/event
  ...ton of headers...
  {"n":"engagement","sd":30,"d":"keepingup.com","u":"https://www.keepingup.com/benchmarks/net-worth/age-30-33","e":13813,"v":37}
  
  POST https://www.keepingup.com/api/event
  ...ton of headers...
  {"n":"benchmark_reveal_computed","v":37,"u":"https://www.keepingup.com/benchmarks/net-worth/age-30-33","d":"keepingup.com","r":null}

Nothing leaves your browser my ass.

Can’t believe someone flagged this, thanks for actually looking into it.

Never believe “nothing leaves your browser” unless it’s a locally saved SPA and the network is unplugged.

While I agree that lowlife opportunists using generative AI to front-run game creators is scummy, having the AI playing cop is not the right thing to do. There are any number of posts on HN describing misfires of these rules blocking legitimate user requests.

The AI bros want to liken AI to a compiler (*cough*BS*cough*); well, I've never had a compiler try to decline to compile code on moral grounds.

I oversee and contribute to compilers / toolchains, and I have sometimes had worries about what 'my' compiler could contribute to. I am of course not responsible, but it's not a nice feeling to know a path towards some unpleasant end had steps that involved you.

It reminds me of that version of Linux that was used for automated gun targeting and firing, perhaps in the early 2000s. Authors gave away their code as open source, and then that open source was used for what many felt was an evil purpose. A path to something many disliked or opposed now included them and their actions, despite their good intentions.

Sure, this rule is for a good cause (protecting small games developers) but it is a rule about protecting commercial interests of a group. One can imagine how it might be extended to protect larger, less worthy commercial interests. Imagine a compiler that declined to compile Linux or *BSD because they replicate the functionality of Solaris / HP-UX / AIX / Windows.

It would if the people who owned the compiler had enough market power. Thank gnu for keeping us out of that world.

> "...imagine the vibe-coder who has the same curiosity and inquisitiveness that you had..."

We're required to imagine them because they don't seem to exist in the real world. The vibe-coders seem almost entirely composed of the "I commit 20 kLOC a week without reading a single line, lol" or the "LLMs are like calculators/basic arithmetic skills are obsolete" lunatics.

AI use fades into the background as organizations emphasize accountability and quality rather than the origin of the work product, much like Linus Torvalds did recently. Those who fail to keep up, including the many who deskill because of AI or devolve into prompt-only "coders", will flunk out leaving a very shrunken, less well-paid software profession.

A depressingly percentage of the population doesn't even want to acquire the basic literacy and arithmetic skills provided by a high school education. Their aspirations means nothing because they don't want to put in the work to build any of the foundation needed to reach for them.