5 ms·

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis. I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like amm

by ch_fr 3mo ago

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis. I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I know that sounds really reductive, but this really is the vibe I get when reading this and your other replies where you repeatedly talk about "showing the hypocrisy and double standards". The global LLM discourse has grown massive, it spans trillions of dollars in promises and investments and affects pretty much everyone, so it's the easiest thing in the world for both sides to just find some people being assholes in the other camp and say "look, here's how [other camp] behaves". The irrational, extreme, and heinous reactions are partly bandwagoning, and you can go about your day thinking that anyone who reacts like that is evil. But if you wanna dig a bit further, you'll notice that the entire media sphere has been screaming in everyone's ears for a few years now, that they're expandable, low-value-human-capital. All the money in the world (exaggerating a little) is being spent on making sure to remind anyone who opens a computer, opens a website, looks at a billboard, or turns on his tv... that their boss really really really wants to replace them. Now you'll say that the friendly rsync contributor has nothing to do with any of this and... well yeah he doesn't. You don't need to agree with an emotional response to understand where it's coming from, and even if you're still dead set on considering them "the enemy", then understanding why the anti-AI crowd reacts like that is STILL a positive for you.

pie_flavor 3mo ago
Why is the guy being rigorous worthy of criticism, but the guys being idiots aren't? Did you post any similar calm-down comments in either of the HN threads on the original attacks?
- ch_fr 3mo ago
  I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse? These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment. Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".
bwfan123 3mo ago
> "look, here's how [other camp] behaves" Motivated reasoning in both camps. There are folks incentivized by AI: engineers and managers working for AI related companies who justify their beliefs with selective facts. And then there are engineers who are threatened by AI and are extra-sensitive to slop. The article is missing the point that once camps have made up their minds - no amount of analysis is going to change that.
- davrosthedalek 3mo ago
  Why it is probably and regrettably true that few people in camps will change their mind, data analysis can help people who haven't been captured yet to either stay away from the camps or at least fall into the "more correct" one. Stay out of camps, people!
simianwords 3mo ago
Strange thing to say. The post does a good job of showing that there is no evidence Claude had anything to do with the regressions. Your problem is that this was shown? You don't value epistemics -- you care about the ideology more than truth. Even if you don't like AI you should still do it in the right way. Your comment comes across as more unself aware and more destructive. Lets keep this place truth first and ideology second.
- runarberg 3mo ago
  This article merely showed that one particular sample (two releases of rsync) or not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) on one particular metric (bugs per commit). All that says is that you cannot generalize group difference over the population using that sample. This still leaves the anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and in the absence of better evidence, it is perfectly rational to react based on the evidence you do have.
- ch_fr 3mo ago
  Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times. OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote: > I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis --- And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings". Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse? Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread. What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing". You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers". All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.

by ch_fr 3mo ago

pie_flavor 3mo ago

Why is the guy being rigorous worthy of criticism, but the guys being idiots aren't? Did you post any similar calm-down comments in either of the HN threads on the original attacks?

ch_fr 3mo ago
I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse? These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment. Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".

bwfan123 3mo ago

> "look, here's how [other camp] behaves" Motivated reasoning in both camps. There are folks incentivized by AI: engineers and managers working for AI related companies who justify their beliefs with selective facts. And then there are engineers who are threatened by AI and are extra-sensitive to slop. The article is missing the point that once camps have made up their minds - no amount of analysis is going to change that.

davrosthedalek 3mo ago
Why it is probably and regrettably true that few people in camps will change their mind, data analysis can help people who haven't been captured yet to either stay away from the camps or at least fall into the "more correct" one. Stay out of camps, people!

simianwords 3mo ago

Strange thing to say. The post does a good job of showing that there is no evidence Claude had anything to do with the regressions. Your problem is that this was shown? You don't value epistemics -- you care about the ideology more than truth. Even if you don't like AI you should still do it in the right way. Your comment comes across as more unself aware and more destructive. Lets keep this place truth first and ideology second.

runarberg 3mo ago
This article merely showed that one particular sample (two releases of rsync) or not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) on one particular metric (bugs per commit). All that says is that you cannot generalize group difference over the population using that sample. This still leaves the anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and in the absence of better evidence, it is perfectly rational to react based on the evidence you do have.
ch_fr 3mo ago
Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times. OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote: > I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis --- And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings". Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse? Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread. What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing". You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers". All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.