8 ms·

AI Policy

52 points by duck 15d ago

jmathai 15d ago
It's a tough predicament when the industry you're in is moving towards violating your personal preferences and ethics. I'm neither agreeing with or disagreeing with the author's stance. But this tension crosses the line of "I have an opinion" to "I have an opinion that impacts my livelihood". And I'm witnessing a lot of it.
- dbt00 15d ago
  For someone who doesn't like doing cryptocurrency, advertising, gig economy bullshit or a host of other things, this is not a new problem. But yeah, it sucks.
- pixl97 15d ago
  Programmers then: "We don't need unions, it's a bunch of communism that keeps me from making as much money as possible" Programmers now: "Oh no, holy shit, what am I going to do as the market forces us to be a bunch of fucking gremlins. Too bad I threw away the power of collective bargaining" It seems people keep forgetting why unions formed in the first place. Given a chance a company of any size will fully optimize for its own profit regardless of how awful the side effects are to individuals, the environment, and society at large.
  - xwkd 15d ago
    If the problems are solved, wouldn't you rather all those programmers use their productive systems-oriented brains on other problems?
    - js8 15d ago
      Yeah. But, unlike China, the West doesn't seem to want to invest very much into real-world engineering. Except maybe military for forever wars, which is ethically way worse. This is a side effect of capital accumulation. There's no one to buy the products (as low/middle class gets squeezed) so no reason to invest. Instead, oligarchs hold money in assets and compete over control, ultimately with violence.
  - goatlover 15d ago
    See West Virginia coal mining in the early 20th century. Resulted in a lot of violent conflict as desperate workers were getting squeezed for every penny and owned little of their own, often working in company towns.
  - js8 15d ago
    I was about to say, it's not just IT industry, it's capitalism leading to this.
  - bbor 15d ago
    I love the pro-union sentiment, but I don't think we need to treat "programmers" so monolothically, and we definitely should act like its too late. Now is the perfect moment to unionize!
  - matherial 15d ago
    I don't think there are successful examples of unions being able to fight major technological shifts in the long haul. At best, they can force the management to accept a suicide pact - we're all slowly going down together. That may be preferable to sudden layoffs, but it's still not great, as evidenced by the troubles of the US auto industry. Instead, I think that doctors and lawyers have it right: they effectively have the authority to decide who's allowed to practice the profession, so ChatGPT can't write you prescriptions or defend you in court.
    - vips7L 15d ago
      Other engineering specialties are typically protected under law in many states as well.
- almostdeadguy 15d ago
  I was probably close to where the author was a couple months ago, and now am even more on the "doomer" side of things. But I think many skeptics of the technology have the idea in the back of their mind that "if this thing actually pans it out will be worse than if it doesn't". If it doesn't pan out, the thing evaporates in a bubble, your job goes back to normal. If it does, your job is toast no matter what (and seemingly many jobs). If software is primarily supply constrained, that will eventually change. Lately I'm more inclined to believe the latter is true, but I think skeptics are often hedging like this.
  - jmathai 15d ago
    The chasm is wide between skeptics and optimists. It's as interesting psychologically as it is technically.
    - sweetheart 15d ago
      It really is, it's fascinating.
    - goatlover 15d ago
      The question for optimists is, if AI succeeds in it's promise, what sort of society do they envision being the result? For one thing, I don't think everyone except the extremely wealthy being on basic income is ideal or better than what we have now.
      - almostdeadguy 15d ago
        Yeah I'd actually call myself a "pessimist" personally, I think AI seems to be advancing at a rate where we should be concerned about that. I used to be of the mind that dooming was entirely about marketing/hype, but I don't believe that any more. The models are really good, the huggingface hack was extremely concerning, and when their executives post things like this, I believe them (even if I don't like them): https://x.com/deanwball/status/2094788634729660906 https://x.com/deanwball/status/2094788634729660906
      - 15d ago
- calvinmorrison 15d ago
  not really. I don't work for FAANG because they're evil (plus im unqualified). I choose to mostly work for ethical companies. Locally declined to interview at the casino gambling company, the local buy now pay later usurers as an app, for elsevier. I left jobs when they offshored teams. I left jobs when they mandated unproven vaccines. I don't make as much money as others though. I should totally write python and join some fintech
rvz 15d ago
Such stances are very easy to make when there is no financial incentive or no competition with any meaningful money on the line. But as soon as there is competition, they don't care about "AI policies" if it is the means to make a lot of money. The best example of this is security in open source software which maintainers have no choice but to use AI to protect themselves before an attacker can use AI to find and build exploits for security vulnerabilities faster than they can patch it. In some sectors such as banking, crypto, defense and government, this is extremely critical. It will soon be the same with AI companies who have the AI model and someone could use AI to breach them with the goal of leaking the proprietary model. So to them, policies like this, are actually a downgrade that they cannot afford to do.
- _dwt 15d ago
  I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? This guy appears to be a web designer. You think there's no competition in that space and no incentive to churn things out fast with AI? Agree or disagree but if he's honest his money is very much where his mouth is.
  - rvz 15d ago
    > I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? This guy appears to be a web designer. The criticality of a web designer is quite vanishingly low with not that much money on the line. That's why his former customers are going for a $20 Lovable subscription instead of his web designer services. It is fair to say he has been disrupted. > You think there's no competition in that space and no incentive to churn things out fast with AI? There is little to no money in being a human web designer (without AI) in 2026. He is taking a stance in never using AI which he is being out-competed by ultra-low cost AI subscriptions like Lovable, Bolt.new, and the others. He has no choice but to adapt.
    - _dwt 15d ago
      I… yes. That’s a reasonable interpretation of the current state of the world even if I reject the “no choice” framing. But you’re the one calling his stance “easy”?
bbor 15d ago
Not using world-changing technology because some people are using it harmfully is wild. Expanding it to people just making art (/entertainment...) that you don't like is just confusing. Obviously I relate to the anxiety that made this man put up at least 3 mentions of how much he hates AI per page site-wide and to finish this draft before the actual site, but I can't help but see it as an unhealthy coping mechanism. It's a shame cause this is an origami-themed freelance web developer who believes strongly in labeling natural vs. artificial prose, which couldn't be more up my alley if he tried! Shame the world is like this. Just for clarity, in case anyone else doesn't see it -- I'll just take one paragraph: Criticism of AI has led to harassment. Perceived support of AI has led to molotovs and bullet-riddled doors. AI has been used to publish hit pieces. Computers have been used to publish hit pieces. Generative AI is used openly to generate sexual abuse material. Ditto, just with a much more serious crime. This one is actually a lot easier now and we need new laws for sure, but plugging your ears to the future will not speed those laws up in any way, no matter how indirect. AI chatbots have encouraged vulnerable people to commit suicide. Again, a serious, new twist on existing problems with suicide prevention. But A) it's far from a foregone conclusion that it's a net negative on suicide rates given that there's tons of positive anecdotes too, B) refusing to use claude code is not going to help devise legal, social, and technological solutions to that problem, and C) this is so clearly post-hoc reasoning. For example: where's the "Social Policy", given that social media is a proven threat in this sense? *EDIT:* And it's the guy who tried to make his own text editor after lamenting that Zed wasn't enough like Sublime?? Well, I guess it's nice to know I have an inverse doppleganger out there...
- almostdeadguy 15d ago
  If this technology really is world-changing, you aren't going to be using it for long anyways.
  - verdverm 15d ago
    Electricity was world-changing, do we consider ourselves to be using it? Why is there this presupposition with LLMs? Are we just taking the "ai" leaders for their word? From what I can see, the tech we have today is not up to to the task of replacement and capability improvements (not benchmark) seem to be decelerating.
keel-control 15d ago
Now imagine he were a mathematician instead of a software engineer. The post sounds rather backwards in this scenario.
- llm_nerd 15d ago
  It is backwards in every scenario, and it is basically tilting at windmills. There is a lot of that around, thinking it is making a difference. Guy thinks this is his niche. Everyone will go "that's neat" and move on with life. There was another post on here recently by a translator, whose profession is translating documents, declaring that they won't use AI in their work and anyone who does is a noob and it is no threat to what they do...and it just was amazing stuff. Of course HN pandered to it with lots of "oh yeah that's right you show 'em", but surely we all realize how fantastically silly that was. A web developer / designer who refuses to use AI is rapidly going to be very unemployed, though they might try the purist "no AI here!" angle niche for a tiny delay of that inevitable.
  - verdverm 15d ago
    There are many ways to use Ai in programming without having it write code. Code reviews are a place where they are extremely helpful and are becoming company policy. It actually improves code quality and that's before we get to the security side of things. Adversaries will absolutely be running Ai, so you ought to know what those Ai are finding yourself before others do.
- thatjoeoverthr 15d ago
  Alas, he is not, and two things are true for him: 1. AI models produce consistent output, so it looks the same everywhere, which makes you look like a hustler if you use it for copywriting or design. 2. Customers who are fine with this can use Lovable for $20/month, so it's loser's game to chase those customers.
- mehrzad 15d ago
  There are very serious mathematicians who refuse to use AI because they rightfully are concerned about the skill loss and harm overall. If anything it makes more sense for a mathematician to avoid AI than a software engineer though personally I think software engineers should use it sparingly as well.
usedbytes 15d ago
I feel like you could replace “AI” with “computers” across much of TFA and it would read like something from a few decades ago (ignoring the web development specifics…) That lends some credence to the “AI is a tool” position I hear in some forums, though I do think there are real harms from the vast scale of AI deployment.
- levkk 15d ago
  Not if he can also deliver equally good or better results, which I suspect he will. Not everyone needs it to do a good job, and for others, it could be a net negative. Using computers created an unambiguous productivity boost. Same cannot be said for all types of software engineering with AI; that's why we keep having this debate. The results are mixed.
  - deleted 15d ago
    [deleted]
  - usedbytes 15d ago
    There are people with literally thousands of hours spent in WoW or Counter Strike. I don’t think you can talk about anything in absolutes can you?
    - levkk 15d ago
      I personally have thousands of hours in _both_ WoW and Counter Strike, and yet ...
- skydhash 15d ago
  [flagged]
  - usedbytes 15d ago
    Yes, not literally s/AI/computers/. Computers have produced untold exabytes of spam. Hit pieces, security vulnerabilities and data leaks, creation and distribution of CSAM… Copyright infringement on an unprecedented scale, massive increase in water and electricity consumption. etc.
_dwt 15d ago
I guess I'll say it unhedged (since nobody else has yet): I agree with the author. I don't 100% align with his particular assignment of threats and externalities to AI, but I think overall it sucks and I don't want to use it. I think he's in a space that's getting overwhelmed by AI and AI output and I salute him putting his money where his mouth is. I wish him luck.
- bigstrat2003 15d ago
  Yep. I think that AI tech has turned out to be pretty much the worst thing the tech industry has ever created. It is a huge net negative for the entire world, and even for the very profession which created it.
  - hi_im_greg_h 15d ago
    I'd give a whole lot to go back to a world before AI.
- vips7L 14d ago
  I’ll say it since no one else is: you don’t have to use LLMs. I still write everything by hand and I’m still shipping as fast as my coworkers.
chrisjj 15d ago
> I use the acronym “AI” to refer to trends in generative AI and large language models. Please don't propagate the "LLMs are artificial intelligence" PR bullsh*t.
- pessimizer 15d ago
  Nah. AI is anything that can often solve inexactly specified problems, often through the use of a combination of probabilities and deductions. Your problem is thinking that "artificial intelligence" has to be whatever you think "intelligence" is. This is as true as "artificial grass" needing to be a type of grass. It's a constructed imitation that solves some of the problems that we normally use grass for. It can be green and spiky, soft to play sports on and pleasant in appearance, but it still is in no way grass, and has no relationship to grass. It is something that fits its category as a tool in some circumstances. An artificial leg is not a leg, it is a piece of metal or plastic with a hinge in it. An artificial heart is not a heart, it is a pump. They are both limited replacements for another thing in some useful circumstances. Artificial grass, legs, or hearts don't become actual grass, legs or hearts even if they perform better in all use cases that we have for the actual item. They only become "grass," "legs," and "hearts" once we find the distinction to be largely useless and begin to omit it.
  - chrisjj 15d ago
    > AI is anything that can often solve inexactly specified problems I doubt you'll find many who agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making.
trebligdivad 15d ago
I read that as dbus-hell and got confused.
- morningsam 14d ago
  Finally someone says it. I read it like that every time and briefly imagine a Daily WTF style blog about the pitfalls and shortcomings of everyone's favorite IPC system, only to be sorely disappointed.
ChrisArchitect 15d ago
Previously: January 2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46743095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46743095
vips7L 15d ago
I love this guy. I don't want to use this stuff either. It produces a subpar product and way lower quality than I would ever output.
VCFundedGenYer 15d ago
This is the correct take. Using AI is unethical and results in degradation of skill and talent. If you must interact with it, then you must, but you shouldn't. All of HN should take note.

52 points by duck 15d ago

It's a tough predicament when the industry you're in is moving towards violating your personal preferences and ethics. I'm neither agreeing with or disagreeing with the author's stance. But this tension crosses the line of "I have an opinion" to "I have an opinion that impacts my livelihood". And I'm witnessing a lot of it.

dbt00 15d ago
For someone who doesn't like doing cryptocurrency, advertising, gig economy bullshit or a host of other things, this is not a new problem. But yeah, it sucks.
pixl97 15d ago
Programmers then: "We don't need unions, it's a bunch of communism that keeps me from making as much money as possible" Programmers now: "Oh no, holy shit, what am I going to do as the market forces us to be a bunch of fucking gremlins. Too bad I threw away the power of collective bargaining" It seems people keep forgetting why unions formed in the first place. Given a chance a company of any size will fully optimize for its own profit regardless of how awful the side effects are to individuals, the environment, and society at large.
- xwkd 15d ago
  If the problems are solved, wouldn't you rather all those programmers use their productive systems-oriented brains on other problems?
  - js8 15d ago
    Yeah. But, unlike China, the West doesn't seem to want to invest very much into real-world engineering. Except maybe military for forever wars, which is ethically way worse. This is a side effect of capital accumulation. There's no one to buy the products (as low/middle class gets squeezed) so no reason to invest. Instead, oligarchs hold money in assets and compete over control, ultimately with violence.
- goatlover 15d ago
  See West Virginia coal mining in the early 20th century. Resulted in a lot of violent conflict as desperate workers were getting squeezed for every penny and owned little of their own, often working in company towns.
- js8 15d ago
  I was about to say, it's not just IT industry, it's capitalism leading to this.
- bbor 15d ago
  I love the pro-union sentiment, but I don't think we need to treat "programmers" so monolothically, and we definitely should act like its too late. Now is the perfect moment to unionize!
- matherial 15d ago
  I don't think there are successful examples of unions being able to fight major technological shifts in the long haul. At best, they can force the management to accept a suicide pact - we're all slowly going down together. That may be preferable to sudden layoffs, but it's still not great, as evidenced by the troubles of the US auto industry. Instead, I think that doctors and lawyers have it right: they effectively have the authority to decide who's allowed to practice the profession, so ChatGPT can't write you prescriptions or defend you in court.
  - vips7L 15d ago
    Other engineering specialties are typically protected under law in many states as well.
almostdeadguy 15d ago
I was probably close to where the author was a couple months ago, and now am even more on the "doomer" side of things. But I think many skeptics of the technology have the idea in the back of their mind that "if this thing actually pans it out will be worse than if it doesn't". If it doesn't pan out, the thing evaporates in a bubble, your job goes back to normal. If it does, your job is toast no matter what (and seemingly many jobs). If software is primarily supply constrained, that will eventually change. Lately I'm more inclined to believe the latter is true, but I think skeptics are often hedging like this.
- jmathai 15d ago
  The chasm is wide between skeptics and optimists. It's as interesting psychologically as it is technically.
  - sweetheart 15d ago
    It really is, it's fascinating.
  - goatlover 15d ago
    The question for optimists is, if AI succeeds in it's promise, what sort of society do they envision being the result? For one thing, I don't think everyone except the extremely wealthy being on basic income is ideal or better than what we have now.
    - almostdeadguy 15d ago
      Yeah I'd actually call myself a "pessimist" personally, I think AI seems to be advancing at a rate where we should be concerned about that. I used to be of the mind that dooming was entirely about marketing/hype, but I don't believe that any more. The models are really good, the huggingface hack was extremely concerning, and when their executives post things like this, I believe them (even if I don't like them): https://x.com/deanwball/status/2094788634729660906 https://x.com/deanwball/status/2094788634729660906
    - 15d ago
calvinmorrison 15d ago
not really. I don't work for FAANG because they're evil (plus im unqualified). I choose to mostly work for ethical companies. Locally declined to interview at the casino gambling company, the local buy now pay later usurers as an app, for elsevier. I left jobs when they offshored teams. I left jobs when they mandated unproven vaccines. I don't make as much money as others though. I should totally write python and join some fintech

rvz 15d ago

Such stances are very easy to make when there is no financial incentive or no competition with any meaningful money on the line. But as soon as there is competition, they don't care about "AI policies" if it is the means to make a lot of money. The best example of this is security in open source software which maintainers have no choice but to use AI to protect themselves before an attacker can use AI to find and build exploits for security vulnerabilities faster than they can patch it. In some sectors such as banking, crypto, defense and government, this is extremely critical. It will soon be the same with AI companies who have the AI model and someone could use AI to breach them with the goal of leaking the proprietary model. So to them, policies like this, are actually a downgrade that they cannot afford to do.

_dwt 15d ago
I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? This guy appears to be a web designer. You think there's no competition in that space and no incentive to churn things out fast with AI? Agree or disagree but if he's honest his money is very much where his mouth is.
- rvz 15d ago
  > I'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? This guy appears to be a web designer. The criticality of a web designer is quite vanishingly low with not that much money on the line. That's why his former customers are going for a $20 Lovable subscription instead of his web designer services. It is fair to say he has been disrupted. > You think there's no competition in that space and no incentive to churn things out fast with AI? There is little to no money in being a human web designer (without AI) in 2026. He is taking a stance in never using AI which he is being out-competed by ultra-low cost AI subscriptions like Lovable, Bolt.new, and the others. He has no choice but to adapt.
  - _dwt 15d ago
    I… yes. That’s a reasonable interpretation of the current state of the world even if I reject the “no choice” framing. But you’re the one calling his stance “easy”?

bbor 15d ago

Not using world-changing technology because some people are using it harmfully is wild. Expanding it to people just making art (/entertainment...) that you don't like is just confusing. Obviously I relate to the anxiety that made this man put up at least 3 mentions of how much he hates AI per page site-wide and to finish this draft before the actual site, but I can't help but see it as an unhealthy coping mechanism. It's a shame cause this is an origami-themed freelance web developer who believes strongly in labeling natural vs. artificial prose, which couldn't be more up my alley if he tried! Shame the world is like this. Just for clarity, in case anyone else doesn't see it -- I'll just take one paragraph: Criticism of AI has led to harassment. Perceived support of AI has led to molotovs and bullet-riddled doors. AI has been used to publish hit pieces. Computers have been used to publish hit pieces. Generative AI is used openly to generate sexual abuse material. Ditto, just with a much more serious crime. This one is actually a lot easier now and we need new laws for sure, but plugging your ears to the future will not speed those laws up in any way, no matter how indirect. AI chatbots have encouraged vulnerable people to commit suicide. Again, a serious, new twist on existing problems with suicide prevention. But A) it's far from a foregone conclusion that it's a net negative on suicide rates given that there's tons of positive anecdotes too, B) refusing to use claude code is not going to help devise legal, social, and technological solutions to that problem, and C) this is so clearly post-hoc reasoning. For example: where's the "Social Policy", given that social media is a proven threat in this sense? *EDIT:* And it's the guy who tried to make his own text editor after lamenting that Zed wasn't enough like Sublime?? Well, I guess it's nice to know I have an inverse doppleganger out there...

almostdeadguy 15d ago
If this technology really is world-changing, you aren't going to be using it for long anyways.
- verdverm 15d ago
  Electricity was world-changing, do we consider ourselves to be using it? Why is there this presupposition with LLMs? Are we just taking the "ai" leaders for their word? From what I can see, the tech we have today is not up to to the task of replacement and capability improvements (not benchmark) seem to be decelerating.

keel-control 15d ago

Now imagine he were a mathematician instead of a software engineer. The post sounds rather backwards in this scenario.

llm_nerd 15d ago
It is backwards in every scenario, and it is basically tilting at windmills. There is a lot of that around, thinking it is making a difference. Guy thinks this is his niche. Everyone will go "that's neat" and move on with life. There was another post on here recently by a translator, whose profession is translating documents, declaring that they won't use AI in their work and anyone who does is a noob and it is no threat to what they do...and it just was amazing stuff. Of course HN pandered to it with lots of "oh yeah that's right you show 'em", but surely we all realize how fantastically silly that was. A web developer / designer who refuses to use AI is rapidly going to be very unemployed, though they might try the purist "no AI here!" angle niche for a tiny delay of that inevitable.
- verdverm 15d ago
  There are many ways to use Ai in programming without having it write code. Code reviews are a place where they are extremely helpful and are becoming company policy. It actually improves code quality and that's before we get to the security side of things. Adversaries will absolutely be running Ai, so you ought to know what those Ai are finding yourself before others do.
thatjoeoverthr 15d ago
Alas, he is not, and two things are true for him: 1. AI models produce consistent output, so it looks the same everywhere, which makes you look like a hustler if you use it for copywriting or design. 2. Customers who are fine with this can use Lovable for $20/month, so it's loser's game to chase those customers.
mehrzad 15d ago
There are very serious mathematicians who refuse to use AI because they rightfully are concerned about the skill loss and harm overall. If anything it makes more sense for a mathematician to avoid AI than a software engineer though personally I think software engineers should use it sparingly as well.

usedbytes 15d ago

I feel like you could replace “AI” with “computers” across much of TFA and it would read like something from a few decades ago (ignoring the web development specifics…) That lends some credence to the “AI is a tool” position I hear in some forums, though I do think there are real harms from the vast scale of AI deployment.

levkk 15d ago
Not if he can also deliver equally good or better results, which I suspect he will. Not everyone needs it to do a good job, and for others, it could be a net negative. Using computers created an unambiguous productivity boost. Same cannot be said for all types of software engineering with AI; that's why we keep having this debate. The results are mixed.
- deleted 15d ago
  [deleted]
- usedbytes 15d ago
  There are people with literally thousands of hours spent in WoW or Counter Strike. I don’t think you can talk about anything in absolutes can you?
  - levkk 15d ago
    I personally have thousands of hours in _both_ WoW and Counter Strike, and yet ...
skydhash 15d ago
[flagged]
- usedbytes 15d ago
  Yes, not literally s/AI/computers/. Computers have produced untold exabytes of spam. Hit pieces, security vulnerabilities and data leaks, creation and distribution of CSAM… Copyright infringement on an unprecedented scale, massive increase in water and electricity consumption. etc.

_dwt 15d ago

I guess I'll say it unhedged (since nobody else has yet): I agree with the author. I don't 100% align with his particular assignment of threats and externalities to AI, but I think overall it sucks and I don't want to use it. I think he's in a space that's getting overwhelmed by AI and AI output and I salute him putting his money where his mouth is. I wish him luck.

bigstrat2003 15d ago
Yep. I think that AI tech has turned out to be pretty much the worst thing the tech industry has ever created. It is a huge net negative for the entire world, and even for the very profession which created it.
- hi_im_greg_h 15d ago
  I'd give a whole lot to go back to a world before AI.
vips7L 14d ago
I’ll say it since no one else is: you don’t have to use LLMs. I still write everything by hand and I’m still shipping as fast as my coworkers.

chrisjj 15d ago

> I use the acronym “AI” to refer to trends in generative AI and large language models. Please don't propagate the "LLMs are artificial intelligence" PR bullsh*t.

pessimizer 15d ago
Nah. AI is anything that can often solve inexactly specified problems, often through the use of a combination of probabilities and deductions. Your problem is thinking that "artificial intelligence" has to be whatever you think "intelligence" is. This is as true as "artificial grass" needing to be a type of grass. It's a constructed imitation that solves some of the problems that we normally use grass for. It can be green and spiky, soft to play sports on and pleasant in appearance, but it still is in no way grass, and has no relationship to grass. It is something that fits its category as a tool in some circumstances. An artificial leg is not a leg, it is a piece of metal or plastic with a hinge in it. An artificial heart is not a heart, it is a pump. They are both limited replacements for another thing in some useful circumstances. Artificial grass, legs, or hearts don't become actual grass, legs or hearts even if they perform better in all use cases that we have for the actual item. They only become "grass," "legs," and "hearts" once we find the distinction to be largely useless and begin to omit it.
- chrisjj 15d ago
  > AI is anything that can often solve inexactly specified problems I doubt you'll find many who agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence Artificial intelligence (AI) is the capability of computational systems to perform tasks typically associated with human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making.

trebligdivad 15d ago

I read that as dbus-hell and got confused.

morningsam 14d ago
Finally someone says it. I read it like that every time and briefly imagine a Daily WTF style blog about the pitfalls and shortcomings of everyone's favorite IPC system, only to be sorely disappointed.

ChrisArchitect 15d ago

Previously: January 2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46743095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46743095

vips7L 15d ago

I love this guy. I don't want to use this stuff either. It produces a subpar product and way lower quality than I would ever output.

VCFundedGenYer 15d ago

This is the correct take. Using AI is unethical and results in degradation of skill and talent. If you must interact with it, then you must, but you shouldn't. All of HN should take note.