On 2026-07-02 18:54:44, Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > Everything about "ai" is wrong and problematic, even if you want to tolerate > one aspect, it stays unacceptaoone has asked me either, but I 100% agree with > those. > > -quality is unacceptable, > > -environnemental impact is unacceptable > > -ethics are unacceptable > > -it is completely unsustainable on the financial and industrial levels > > -above all, it renders humans incapable and addicted to a centralized system > owned by billionaires > > -it destroys communities and cultures
Noone has asked me, but I agree with Sebastian here and I am rather against using LLMs myself too. I don't like that my code is used by corporations to create their product any money that they use to addict you to the tech. It's one thing when a human reads my GPL code and uses very similar code to implement something in the company. He did benefit from it somehow, he got smarter, maybe he saved his job, whatever, but he's the primary benefactor. With LLM? Company benefits first. And the dude may even loose his job because of LLM. And I want for people first to benefit from my work - not corporations. Also LLM makes you dumber. Especially if you are learning. I use LLM sometimes as search engine or example generator. But even with that, I can feel my brain getting lazy and poking me to use LLM for that quick solution. From one point it's cool to get solution faster, but on the other hand, we will loose ability to solve problems on our own. I can see benefits of LLM. Like the time you guys used it to refactor stm32 source file to be more structured. Yeah, I think that's good use for LLM. But there are just much more bad use cases. Can't speak for anyone, but I avoid LLMs mainly for my and my brain's sake. I believe LLM will cause more harm than good. Especially in the future, when experienced programmers pre-llm era will start to die out.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
