It’s all virtue signaling. If it’s good, nobody will be able to notice anyway and they’ll want it regardless. The only reason people shit on AI currently is because expert humans are still far better than it.

We’re just at that awkward point in time where AI is better than the random joe but worse than experts.

What if they use it as part of the art tho?

Like a horror game that uses an AI to just slightly tweak an image of the paintings in a haunted building continuously everytime you look past them to look just 1% creepier?

This might be a little off-topic, but I've noticed what seems to be a trend of anti-AI discourse ignoring programmers. Protect artists, writers, animators, actors, voice-actors... programmers, who? No idea if it's because they're partly to blame, or people are simply unaware code is also stolen by AI companies—still waiting on that GitHub Copilot lawsuit—but the end result appears to be a general lack of care about GenAI in coding.

The first one is "Go Green" by Mitch Benn

found it in 2 minutes just by googling the lyrics in your comment, specifically this search:

"go green when they go green"

We’ll go green when you go green
You’ll go green when he goes green
We’ll get as far as aquamarine or so
But we’re still gonna call it green

but I couldn't find the second one

It makes decisions.

It generates content.

Pathfinding can be AI, but not generative AI.

There are many reasons that people dislike gen AI; you can't be sure that it's because they dislike how it's built on theft. Here are three different unrelated reasons to dislike gen AI:

• it puts people out of work;
• it's built on theft;
• it produces "slop" in large quantities

Same vibes as "if you learned to draw with an iPad then you didn't actually learn to draw".

Or in my case, I'm old enough to remember "computer art isn't real animation/art" and also the criticism assist Photoshop.

And there's plenty of people who criticized Andy Warhol too before then.

Go back in history and you can read about criticisms of using typewriters over hand writing as well.

If you learned math with a calculator you didn’t learn math.

The irony is that most programmers were just googling and getting answers from stackoverflow, now they don't even need to Google.

That's the thing, though, doing that still requires you to read the answer, understand it, and apply it to the thing you're doing, because the answer probably isn't tailored to your exact task. Doing this work is how you develop an understanding of what's going on in your language, your libraries, and your own code. An experienced developer has built up those mental muscles, and can probably get away with letting an AI do the tedious stuff, but more novice developers will be depriving themselves of learning what they're actually doing if they let the AI handle the easy things, and they'll be helpless to figure out the things that the AI can't do.

Going from assembly to C does put the programmer at some distance from the reality of the computer, and I'd argue that if you haven't at least dipped into some assembly and at least understand the basics of what's actually going on down there, your computer science education is incomplete. But once you have that understanding, it's okay to let the computer handle the tedium for you and only dip down to that level if necessary. Or learning sorting algorithms, versus just using your standard library's sort() function, same thing. AI falls into that category too, I'd argue, but it's so attractive that I worry it's treating important learning as tedium and helping people skip it.

I'm all for making programming simpler, for lowering barriers and increasing accessibility, but there's a risk there too. Obviously wheelchairs are good things, but using one simply "because it's easier" and not because you need to will cause your legs to atrophy, or never develop strength in the first place, and I'm worried there's a similar thing going on with AI in programming. "I don't want to have to think about this" isn't a healthy attitude to have, a program is basically a collection of crystallized thoughts and ideas, thinking it through is a critical part of the process.

The people who say they don't support these tools come across as purists or virtue signallers.

It is now "purist" to protest against the usage of tools that by and large steal from the work of countless unpaid, uncredited, unconsenting artists, writers, and programmers. It is virtue signaling to say I don't support OpenAI or their shitty capital chasing pig-brethren. It's fucking "organic labelling" to want to support like-minded people instead of big tech.

Y'all are ridiculous. The more of this I see, the more radicalized I get. Cool tech, yes, I admit! But wow, you just want to sweep all those pesky little ethical issues aside because... it makes you more productive? Shit, it's like you're competing with Altman on the unlikeability ranking.