I’ve noticed an uptick in the number of pro-AI posts on this platform.
Various posts with titles similar to “When will people stop being afraid of AI” or “Can we please acknowledge AI was very needed for X”
Can’t tell if its the propaganda machine invading, or annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality.
The fuckai crowd has always been a vocal minority, amplified by Lemmy’s small userbase. It was never going to last as the default message being heard.
Personally I think LLMs are pretty useful and run them on my PC occasionally. I’m more of a Fuck Corporate Datacentres kinda person.
Useful for what?
Hallucinating or using drinking water?
Making amazing images incredibly quickly 🤷🏻♂️
Yes.
Didn’t know my PC used water? Thanks for teaching me something.
How do you imagine your “local” AI was trained? Let me tell you, in a massive datacenter that used gallons of water.
Running AI is a smaller problem. A ton of power and resources go into training them.
Not to mention all the stolen work they are trained on.
Their concerns about drinking water are exaggerated, but technically your computer does use water if go far enough back. But once you do that, everything that uses electricity also uses water.
It’s not nearly as much water as using ethanol gas.
Useful for what?
Checking writing for grammatical errors.
You don’t need AI for that. Grammar checkers existed for decades before AI.
That’s not what the question was about.
I’m with ya there. I think a lot of the valid hate towards AI is is actually for Big Tech companies and data centers.
I support folks running less powerful locally hosted models on their own hardware, which I also do myself!
It seems like its usually just one person just posting over and over or making alts (I assume, based on the fact they just reiterate the same arguments), rather than a coordinated effort.
I assume, based on the fact they just reiterate the same arguments
I saw someone else make this same argument. Can’t believe you made an alt to post it again.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Post anything that is going against the grain, you must be a bot or part of a coordinated attack…
Some people are unlearning the fact that different opinions exist :'(
propaganda
FYI: Anti-AI people are a very small minority of the world.
When more “normies” join in, you’ll see a natural shift into being more “pro AI”
Anecdote: A fucking therapist told me to “just use AI to help you write a resume”… 🧐 (don’t remember how I even got to the topic of resumes)
Yeah… turns out not a good fit, for other reasons… (constantly just be like “go outside” and making me feel so unconfortable and I kinda had an existential crisis on whether or not I belonged in this country)
Yeah… Your opinion isn’t really backed by the data
“Normies” don’t default to pro AI
Tbf they said “the world” not “USA”
"Globally, the share of individuals who see AI products and services as more beneficial than harmful has risen from 52% in 2022 to 55% in 2024.
https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/public-opinion
Here, try this - genuine, well-regarded organization with actual experience at opinion polling far in excess of the clanker wankers at Stanford: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/
But many are worried about AI’s effects on daily life. A median of 34% of adults say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while 42% are equally concerned and excited. A median of 16% are more excited than concerned.
clanker wankers at Stanford
Just going to toss out a wild guess here, but any chance you might be emotionally motivated to find a source that backs what you already believe to be true rather than looking at the stats objectively?
I too am concerned about AI, but I’m not against it. Those things aren’t the same.
Being concerned about at technology and being against that technology are not synonymous.
Those are a different set of questions though. The question shouldn’t be if someone is concerned about AI use. Frankly, everyone should be. It has a huge capacity for harm in a growing number of areas in modern society. The question should be about who is using it. Additionally, what are they using it for? Novel problem solving, new automation, replacing older automation, or just for fun? That is what I’d personally be much more interested in finding out.
Interesting how Americans are the most concerned. I wonder what might explain that. In the US, white people are the most worried (IIRC).
Probably because we have the worst mix of low govt regulations and high amounts of AI tech being pushed at us.
Yeah, and you can automatically trust such an independent and neutral source as that 🙄
Is Stanford not neutral or independent? AFAIK the data is from Ipsos and they just made visualizations, though you can correct me if I’m wrong. I was just trying to say that the OP said the world whereas the person I replied to showed data from Americans specifically.
Edit: Ohhh I see it’s from Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) not just Stanford the University, my bad.
I could definitely see how this would be a biased source then:
“Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI) is an academic entity led by an interdisciplinary steering committee of university researchers and industry experts.”
Luckily they only made visualizations from Ipsos’s data though I think?
Ipsos is a poll-for-hire firm and they just design the surveys their clients want, unlike Pew which is doing actual independent research polling. It’s like the difference between tobacco company-funded specialized research and independent, government funded basic research.
The byline of the article you posted is “Americans see a role for AI in some areas of society” and it clearly states “a majority is open to letting AI assist them with day-to-day tasks and activities”.
Being “afraid” of it isn’t the same as not using it.
“Normies” don’t default to pro AI [emphasis mine]
That’s a pretty significant distinction there. People are using AI even if they’re not “paying” (directly) for pro versions.
A lot of people are using AI in ways they don’t realize as well. Like the click through rate on Google search results is terrible now since people are just reading the AI generated summary and moving on (Study Confirms Google AI Overviews Cut Organic Clicks 38% https://share.google/8gllKLbbC0Onygqvz).
Other people eat up and share AI slop articles, videos and photos without even batting an eye. I ask them if they’ve thought about whether it’s real or not. Nope. I point out its AI slop. “oh, that sucks. But it’s still hilarious/cool/fascinating/etc.”
I know several people who don’t even think twice about using free AI directly. Need to translate something? Copilot. Need to write an email? Copilot. Need to post something to instagram? Copilot (for text, not the photos - as far as I know.)
Will they pay for it? No. Will they say they’re worried about AI? Yup. Do they connect what they’re doing to the issue? Nope.
If you only pay attention to the prevailing winds here on Lemmy, your view of the world will be very skewed.
I think you may be misinterpreting the data set that you posted. The point of that data set wasn’t to find if someone was pro versus anti-AI. It was to find concerns about existing AI structure. Nonetheless, that post shows on a few occasions The majority of the people surveyed were okay with AI as a whole, but were just concerned about how it was functioning and controlled.
if you would like to look into that data yourself, it even says it right on the front page when it asks about what sectors people believe that AI should be in and only about one third of the people who responded said that it should play no role whatsoever in the topics.
The best graph for it though in my opinion is the very last page where they asked the question of how many people would use AI at all even a little bit and the majority of them said they would at least a little bit use AI.
from how I interpreted it, it’s clear at least by that study that the majority of the people are for AI, but they are concerned with how it’s currently being implemented. And there are certain areas that they don’t believe it should be in Such as relationships, health care and creative thinking. (Although these areas still got quite a bit of votes just didn’t hit the 50%)
I have been expecting there to be some softening and some people who use AI for coding on the DL here. It really has gotten significantly more common to at least try out tools like Claude Code. But those people aren’t writing articles like that and I’m not seeing them.
If anything it seems to be the reverse. The two most anti-slop people I know in real life are developers that are now unemployed due to slop. Anecdotes, though.
Which raises 2 questions: Were they anti-slop because they saw the threat to their jobs? Or did they lose their jobs because they wouldn’t match the output of AI users?
Definitely the former. I’m not a professional developer so this may be inaccurate, but I don’t think there are non-AI users in professional development spaces anymore. Claude seems pretty much ubiquitous at this point; I doubt there have been meaningful numbers of non-AI-using developers for a while.
Which makes the risk of deskilling so much more scary to me, personally. At least now we still have developers that can understand, untangle, and troubleshoot AI code output. Will the next generation of AI-first developers have those same skills?
I’ve been encouraged to use Claude Code for work, and by a lot of genuinely very talented engineers. It’s absolutely overhyped if you look at twitter tech bros, and absolutely under hyped if you only read Lemmy.
Out of curiosity, why have you been expecting a softening? From what I’ve seen AI tools for coding have gotten worse recently, not better. And companies are now jacking up the prices, to be more in line with costs. I’ve heard people irl complaining they went from $10 per month to $1000 if they were to continue using it the same way. Most have capped themselves or stopped altogether, as with that price it isn’t worth it anymore.
So my personal experience is more people complaining, but I’m interested in your view.
Companies and programmers who are using it for real world development don’t care about $1000. A good programmer will run a company $10k or even $20k a month for their salary. If they can add even 50% to the output from that programmer they will throw $2000 a month at it and not even blink an eye.
The Anti-AI folks don’t talk to that kind of person much. They’re not running in the same social circles.
Meanwhile, I have a working application I built to replace a shitty corporate android app for a product I own that’s used for my side hustle. Built using an agentic harness using a local opensource LLM. Coding such a thing myself was beyond my development skill level, and it probably would have cost $100k-200k to pay a programmer to rebuild it to the level that it’s currently at now.
You have a good point that I missed about pricing that will keep many hobbyists away who can’t run something like Qwen Code locally. I don’t think the models have gotten worse although I don’t have data to back that up, but what I do know is a lot of devs in the private sector I know have gotten onboard recently and they had positive experiences with using it for coding tasks.
So given that it is more likely to me that opinion would soften even here. Most people just don’t care that much about the ethical or philosophical problems of LLMs and pragmatism for solving problems they care about will win out.
Thanks for responding. It’s good to get different people’s opinion about it.
Running stuff locally is really cool, I’ve messed about with it. I think the tech is super interesting, it’s just a shame about all the downsides in the way it’s used right now. Unfortunately what I can run is very limited, my most powerful machine has a 4070 GPU with 12GB of VRAM. The lack of VRAM really limits it to very small models which are fun to play around with, but not for anything serious.
I would love to get my hands on something with more VRAM or one of those unified memory ARM systems. However AI has pushed prices for anything like that into the stratosphere.
I like to hear opinions of people who find it interesting; myself I’ve tried Claude and did not like the experience and don’t use it. I have a similar gaming GPU that could run small models but not ones powerful enough to be very interesting.
Same. I noticed that I finally got banned from a few random instances I’d never visited before under my moderation history, and they were all by the same guy who claimed I was an “anti-AI troll” lmao
The most hilarious part to this is I feel so dispassionate about the subject, I can seldom remember what it was I might have commented, and was probably something like “yeah this looks like slop” hahaha
If you ignore or are blissfully unaware of the negatives – and all the companies behind all the major product lines do their best to hide and minimize them – then it’s easy to find utility. Basically everyone I know IRL actively chooses to use AI for something. Both CRAP (Computer-Rendered Artificial Pictures) and code generation are very common.
When I point out the ethical issues, I am generally dismissed entirely (“they’ll fix that” or “my impact is small”) or counter with something about quality (“it works now” and “it’s getting better”), which I find is beside the point.
code generation
You mean Slopware “Development”?
(I opted to keep the “Development”, putting it in quotes as a sarcastic nod to the fact it’s no longer actual development)
Sort of. A friend used it to generate some “tests” of questionable quality, a cousin is using it to help her learn and use a DSL (my term, not hers) for interactive tasks for her students, another friend was using it for source code generation, but I don’t recall the specific results.
I disagree that it is no longer development, I see LLMs as yet another tool for generating code, and we’ve had generated “source” code since before C was standardized. I think the any code output by most LLMs is derivative of so many works under so many licenses that it is likely not possible to distribute it at all without violating some copyright and is certainly unacceptable for any Free Software project.; I think this is ethically true even if courts find LLM outputs are not derivative works or not subject to copyright protection at all – at least as long as copyright protects Disney. But, I know people that are working on a Free Software LLM, and “the Stack” provides enough information that you could provide all the necessary attributions for works derived from it.
While LLM hallucinations are a real concern, they can be less impactful when doing code generation because of all the automated static checks plus the culture of peer-review. But, I also tend to favor languages with static type systems.
I disagree that it is no longer development, I see LLMs as yet another tool for generating code, and we’ve had generated “source” code since before C was standardized.
Fair. There is a difference between using LLMs to generate boilerplate code customised to your context or provide a starting point if you’re stuck on a given problem and struggle to find a different perspective for approaching it, and using it to get around having to do mental work.
My term is intended for the kind of vibe coding where there is little, if any, technical skill involved and people are just letting LLMs slop together code without meaningful code quality assurance. In those cases, I don’t think it warrants recognition as development. If it produces workable results, cool. Call it software generation.
Using it as a learning assistant would probably be the most justified use case in my opinion. I have my reservations whether it is suitable for that purpose but I don’t know enough about the specific way it is applied to comment on that. If it produces training code that isn’t directly published you dodge the legal iffyiness, and if it helps build skills, that solves the “relying on AI makes you unlearn skills” issue.
I’ll use AI to summarize a long document. That’s about it.
Why?
Not the person you asked, but I’d guess it’s multi-factorial. First that LLM-based summaries ARE generally higher quality than the pre-LLM summary tools output. Second, that LLMs are being given away free at point of prompt and are easily found; while summarizing tools have existed at least since 2000 (MS Word contained one), they were not easily found and usually involved purchasing some larger software collection, or a onerous install process. Third, everyone* hates** reading: if you’ve ever has user-support as part of your job, you’ve probably has at least one user where the message they read to you off of their screen tells them exactly what to do, but they chose to call you before really reading the message.
Also, I’m not sure what “long” is. It can be really hard to keep enough attention on something though 100s of pages, especially when it’s not trying to be engaging and is rather dry.
To OP, I would say that you might want to rethink using an LLM summary for any decision process. The LLM architecture makes “hallucinations” inevitable so eventually you are going to read an LLM summary that says the document includes something that it does NOT.
Oh certainly. Basically, I use it in the same way I used the Schaum’s outlines in university. The summary provides a quick outline. To get an actual understanding, I go to the source myself.
I do like to read, but slogging through an entire 500 page manual when I only need like to read six paragraphs to get my job done, is a bit much. And yes I do know how to use indices, but stuff can be buried amidst so many cross references.
The kind of people who make hating AI part of their identity are pretty rare in the real world. Lemmy just creates the illusion that this loud minority’s views are way more common than they actually are.
And as always, the “pro-AI” people aren’t as much for it as the haters are against it. It’s not a binary thing between the two extremes. Every real person I’ve talked to about AI has had a pretty neutral view on it and is usually well aware of its limitations. Even the ones who lean heavily on it aren’t as passionate about it than the haters are.
AI hate is such a spoiled white people issue. They just don’t understand the value proposition because they already got their cake and ate it too.
Here in SEA LLMs have been life changing for people yet we should be upset because some corporate logo designer is losing their job?
More so that the widespread use of AI encourages more and more data centers being built, which uses an insane amount of electricity, most of which is not generated with renewables, accelerating the already dire global warming.
In other words, people’s desire to get crappy art or hallucinated code is speeding up the death of our planet and everything on it.
Let’s not delude ourselves that we don’t need more datacenters shall we? We’ll never need less compute, ever so these will have to be built anyway.
There’s an answer to all of these problems that, ironically, isn’t binary do or don’t but rage bait gets the better of everyone and here we are.
Your view is the exact opposite of reality given the number of AI Data centers that are being delayed and just outright stopped by local communities.
I don’t think the people who don’t want AI data centers in their backyards are motivated by hatred toward AI. It tends to be mostly driven by things like environmental worries and energy and water demand.
“I don’t think people that are motivated to catch murderers are motivated by their hatred of murder. It tends to be mostly driven by things like no liking dead bodies or the fact Susan is no longer around.”
That obvious bad faith you demonstrate there is nothing but a confession about your own character.
One could say the same to you. What you described is inexorably linked to AI. Those things will always be a part of it. If AI was useful, or liked, by the general public – if it served a single useful function they appreciated, they would accept the consequences of its existence.
People like driving in the US. It is destroying the environment. It poisons the water and air. It is expensive and raises taxes, hell most property tax that most people pay in the US goes towards road maintenance for cars, and nearly half of all utility expenses are due to the complexities of car-centric urban design. But people accept that.
People are not accepting of AI. Period. It does not provide enough value for its cost.
NIMBYism is a real phenomenon. People just don’t want stuff like that built near them - including schools. It’s not because they’re against education. You’re projecting your own views on AI onto other people while ignoring all the other possible explanations for their actions. You can say it’s inextricably linked to AI, but you saying that doesn’t make it so. I’m sure some of those people think that, but I’ve seen no evidence that it’s the main driver of it.
While NIMBYISM is real, it’s not happening here. The protests in council meetings are not ‘we don’t want it here,’ it’s ‘we don’t want it anywhere in our state.’ Because the effects of AI are state wide reductions in resources.
Trying to equate people who don’t want their environment and their homes destroyed by AI data centers with nimbys is such a brain dead take. Just truly despicable.
The kind of people who make hating AI part of their identity are pretty rare in the real world. Lemmy just creates the illusion that this loud minority’s views are way more common than they actually are.
Yup, essentially every office worker at my company is pro-ai whereas shop workers have a bit more distain for it.
I got asked to organize shop drawings into categories so that they can feed their LLM data on the different types of products we produce, so long as it’s not someone’s personal information It genuinely doesn’t bother me.
I haven’t talked to a lot of people about AI, but I’m extremely skeptical, and my wife, who isn’t usually dialed into this sort of thing, fucking hates it. I’m not sure how that plays out across the general populace, but I’m inclined to think it’s pretty unpopular.
People rarely arrive at these views independently - it’s always influenced by the people and environment around them. Kind of like how cigarette smokers tend to know lots of other smokers, while people who don’t smoke hang out with other non-smokers.
I’m not claiming nobody hates AI or that there’s no valid reasons to oppose it. All I’m saying is that the impression of how widespread that hate is - the one platforms like Lemmy give - isn’t exactly representative of the real world.
Hate is an extreme emotion. Those kinds of emotions are rarely motivated by reason alone, so it often looks more like an ideological stance than a purely rational one. People caught up in strong emotions aren’t exactly known for thinking clearly. There’s a well-known quote about facts not caring about people’s feelings, but I think it’s the other way around: feelings don’t care about facts.
Bots are trying to gaslight to into thinking that slop acceptance is inevitable. It’s just bullshit. Everyone hates slop art. Everyone hates slop music. Everyone hates slop text. Everyone hates forced slop integration.
The only people that like AI are the people that own the chatbots that want to deskill you.
The community is pretty split. I know a lot of people are going to think the accoints are bots. Maybe they are.
But ive met people in real life that truely believe in llm ai solving all thier problems. Its not true bur thats what they believe.
If you point out any valid use case for AI, anti-AI people will come down your throat for sucking off Jensen Huang and promoting genocide.
There is also a difference in argument about what will become of AI. Anti-AI argue it is just a fad like crypto, and will die out. Others saying this is just the beginning and the technology will grow and revolutionize various industries.
So even if you don’t like AI and AI datacenters, even acknowledging the fact AI is almost certainly the next massive revolution in technology is enough for people to start going down a rabbit hole.
My research was AI. Using a certain ai algorithm to find cancer tumors. The new ai funding is helping out adjacent projects.
Llms im still kinda iffy about since the tech requires a lot of copyrighted works just to get mediocure results.
AI is a HUGE field. But what people talk about is the llm side of things.
I know a few people though work who are interested in self-hosting LLMs. There are people in real life who are some amount of pro-LLM.
Most people here are somewhere between neutral and very opposed, so I wouldn’t say the community is split, but there are certainly a range of perspectives, and I can understand where a large chunk of them are coming from, even beyond those I agree with.
AI (LLMs) is/are a fantastic tool.
But that’s what it is, a tool that can make some tasks easier.
It’s not world-changing like some tech bros and CEOs think it is because they don’t actually understand the technology.
It’s also not the apocalypse or The Matrix or Skynet coming to end civilization. It’s just a tool.
After the AI bubble bursts, AI will still be there, as a tool for humans to use.
I think it’s possible that some of the people you see on Lemmy may have started using AI a little more in their lives and see it for what it is.
To be fair, given the power consumption it requires, it definitely leans towards civilization ending.
We also have “the Internet” slurping up massive amounts of energy.
Current Global Electricity Breakdown:
- Total Data Center/Infrastructure Demand: Approximately 2.0% of global electricity.
- AI-Specific Share: Roughly 0.5% of global electricity.
- “Traditional” Internet/Cloud: Roughly 1.5% of global electricity.
The Internet is also a tool that humanity uses. Should we shut that down too? (I would argue yes considering how the “Information Superhighway” somehow made the average person dumber, but that’s a different discussion.)
Except the Internet is actually useful. AI has not shown that it deserves to use that insane amount of energy. It’s actually insane that you think AI isn’t an issue when it’s using 1/3rd as much energy as the ENTIRE INTERNET
LLMs are neat, and useful for some things - but as with practically everything in modern society, capitalism is ruining it.
It’s also not the apocalypse […] It’s just a tool.
So, the problem with tools is that their existence still affects the systems they’re a part of.
For instance, war between the US and Russia is much more dangerous now (yes, it used to be dangerous before as well) because now we have nuclear bombs. We did a whole cold war thing about it. Nuclear bombs change the world even when they’re not being used.
Similarly, meth is just a tool. It is entirely possible to smoke meth, not become addicted, have a great time, vacuum your entire house I guess, come down, chill, and move on with the rest of your life. But, that’s not what we would say meth’s effect on society is, is it?
I am so happy that you are capable of using AI without becoming a psychopath. I am concerned about the psychopaths.
You know what’s crazy is that everyone has begun rebranding things that existed before AI as AI.
The algorithm summary of a common question in Google results? Now it’s AI.
Trello’s automation tasks moving items marked as “Done” to archive? Now it’s AI✨
It’s idiotic lol
Marketing BS. The bad part is all the C-Suites falling for it.
Google at some point also was a great tool. Wikipedia also joins the rankings. LLM chatbots are great but certainly not the primary source of information.
What annoys me is that people began to use them to not to do simple things like writing their own posts about their own things. They began to generate content instead of making it. It is obvious that anything what takes time to be produced, will most certainly be automated once tools are given. But this annoys the hell out of me.
Seeing posts, comments, content generated by LLM, I feel that I am being robbed of artistry, curiosity, interactions with real people. I can automate chats with my family, friends, colleagues, children. But that wont be me. That will be perfect grammar sentence generator, not me - real, tons of mistakes, typos, mostly renting about everything, passionate, bored, funny, witty, dull me.
It saddens me that LLMs are exedcuting (almost?) final blow to a society that is sustaining social media terminal damage.
They began to generate content instead of making it. […] [This] annoys the hell out of me.
Seeing posts, comments, content generated by LLM, I feel that I am being robbed of artistry, curiosity, interactions with real people.
That is probably the greatest irritation I have with my wife right now. I don’t wanna start fights over it, but I also don’t make a secret of my disdain that she uses LLMs for her work. I get it, she has to, because her business requires churning out a lot of text quickly to stay competitive and I want her to succeed, but I hate what the internet has come to and I hate that she participates in that race to the bottom.
typos, mostly renting about everything
That is either a wonderful coincidence or a clever joke, but I love it either way.
Unfortunately we will always have problems explaining to people how to use the right tool for the right job.
The old “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” saying still applies.
Using LLMs to automate your social media is dumb as shit and I don’t understand why people are doing that. It is actively destroying social media. Which may be the natural end-state of a social media platform. Isn’t that why most of us are on Lemmy right now? Because of the state of Reddit and Xitter?
Also, generative AI making art and music and literature is dumb as shit too. Why would you make an AI that does the fun stuff that humans actually want to do? I can’t wait to have AI finish playing BioShock for me…
Humans are social animals, in the United States especially where people are severely separated- they’ll look for and find any kind of easy access towards social interactions: including but not limited to Chat bots. It’s a sad reality that they would dismiss the negative affects it has on our social brains, dismiss the environmental effects it has on our planet, dismiss the social warmings because they’re too involved with LLMS “AI”.
That’s right, it’s not even AI; it’s only large language models or some agentic systems. Way smaller ones existed in the past, think Dr. Sbaitso (1992) or A.L.I.C.E. (1995.) it’s actually not hard to make a chat bot, just have it echo what the user says with some key phrases. That’s the whole existence of chat bots and today’s current “ai” only they have a LOT more variables that were generated off of huge randomly generated data sets (both off of free open sources and stolen data) and that’s what causes it to hallucinate: it’s the randomness that humans don’t have the ability to change or update simply because it’s such a huge list of variables. It’s so massive people think it’s real intelligence! PEOPLE WERE FOOLED ON 1990’s CHART BOTS TOO! 😭 😂
Anywho we recommend the movies Desk Set, Space Odyssey, pi and even Alphaville. They’re related to the subject and they’re pretty good at pointing out the bruhs.
Sure, sure. So when LLMs find 0days that have been around for a decade, they’re just cold reading and stroking the sloperator’s ego. Got it.
If your point was to say “LLMs are good because it can hack into people’s PCs and make the world worse” I think you gotta start setting priorities towards finding some empathy.
Besides it was not discovered by an LLM or AI. It was discovered by Taeyang Lee, researcher at Theori and then later refined into an exploit chain by the Xint Code Research Team, whom both used an “AI”-assisted analysis. So no LLMs didn’t magically find a decade old exploit, LLMs simply was used as a search function based on its trained module of the past coding assets and the logic bug in the Linux kernel.
So yeah it’s basically a glorified search function at that point and if you can find peace fucking a search bar- hey man that’s your thing 🤷🏻♀️
Our sources:
Holy shit, are you a professional strawman builder? Because you’re really good.
An LLM helped fix a bug. That’s all we need to know. It’s useful. Saying so has nothing to do with empathy, lack thereof, or robosexuality or whatever the shit kids are in to these days.
idk about being a straw-man, but regardless the reply was addressing the misleading and not giving proper credit to the researchers and further giving that LLMs were used for analysis, not full on finding the exploit, so no LLMs aren’t good at finding exploits without clear search inquires by humans.
As for the empathy and the robo-sexuality- It was the intentional point of the original comment that people find heavy social relation towards LLMs or other objects that are able to communicate back to them. Even in our examples of the movies they touch on romantically/sexual relations towards robots and a couple others point towards the empathy of them as well. PS these are topics from 1950’s not “whatever the shit kids are in to these days.” Most people affected by this are older generations and young adults without social netting.
Turning it around phrasing that LLMs are useful towards finding exploits makes it sound more like your wanting to use LLMs for using said exploits rather than using LLMs for better use cases. Regardless its still not possible nor ever will be because again LLMs can only use predetermined variables based on its previous learning data set and random variables (PS those random variables that are undesirable are what is commonly called hallucination, its just unwanted variables in a huge spaghetti code.) Its even on the site your sourced:
“Was this AI-found? AI-assisted. The starting insight — that splice() hands page-cache pages into the crypto subsystem and that scatterlist page provenance might be an under-explored bug class — came from human research by Taeyang Lee.”
If we misread your interpretation then our mistake, however the phrasing felt more that you were praising AI for finding exploits and not for actual good use and it read out to us like an ethical issue.
If making this stance clear that LLMs make more harm than good in the case of chat Bots and being used as full on replacements of people makes us a Straw-man than IG we’re a straw-man or whatever lol.
Though we can probably agree that Machine Learning can, should and have been used since the 1950s as glorified search and calculation engines for complex equations and datasets. They can make really good use for generating and categorizing random protein molecules, find patterns in cancer research and even filter out examples astronomers find in the night sky; however its overall useless without a qualified and passionate researcher who knows their stuff and can double check their ML sifters.
Sources for the saucy beans:
- 2016 BBC report on rise of Romantic Robotics: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35354263 (wild fucking article, the movies give more light to the subject than the article, but we included it as its an interesting read)
- Your own source for ease of reference:https://copy.fail/#faq (second to last drop down in FAQ titled: Was this AI-found?)
- 2020 History of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine https://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(20)34466-7/fulltext (Really good read on the history of Machine Learning in medicine)
- 20205 AI advance helps astronomers spot cosmic events with just a handful of examples https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ai-advance-astronomers-cosmic-events.html (AI helped filter and search for patterns it was taught from prior examples and its output was still look through and refined by proper astronomers)
^edit, fixed a bit of formatting lol^
I have noticed it too. Even ones with discussion on.
Can’t tell if its the propaganda machine invading, or annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality.
They’re both “annoying teenage tech-bros who are detached from reality” and they are spreading propaganda they picked up elsewhere.
I think AI has positives to help people, that being said I think it’s out of control currently. I hope the bubble burst soon and we can actually get to a reasonable balance.
I hope the bubble burst soon and we can actually get to a reasonable balance.
In fictional stories yes, in reality no. The only application that AI will find is to replace all employees, and people will be thrown out into the street.
