this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2026
165 points (82.6% liked)
Linux
15239 readers
513 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, yes, "when used responsibly." Like how we use drugs, alcohol, guns, cars, money, power, and everything else responsibly? Humans can't be trusted with things that do more harm than good when used irresponsibly.
AI is the car of modern times. It's convenient, ruinous for the environment, and a danger to anyone in proximity of one. Hell, we even wasted tons of land on highways kinda like what we're doing with datacenters. But boy, does it get you from point A to point B quick.
There is one key difference though, drivers and car manufacturers are sometimes held accountable for their actions
Very weak theater.
Not so long ago, face to face interaction was the only way business was transacted, people were employed and paid.
In today's world, if we could get past the baseless RTO mandates and let the 60% or whatever it is of modern workers work from home or wherever is convenient for them to work, get the commuters off the roads, restructure the food distribution systems to eliminate that need for cars, we really could make a significant improvement in the environmental impact of cars and trucks.
In the world of AI, I suspect a huge chunk of current AI usage, energy burned in data centers, etc. is "wasteful" - investigational, experimental, learning usage. If we can get past that kind of usage and eventually use it for what it's good for and leave it alone for counterproductive wastes of time, it should also be a clear net-benefit for "getting stuff done" not only faster, but more correctly and valuably. Which software is more valuable: one coded by humans over the course of a year, with a half dozen undiscovered security vulnerabilities, or one coded by those same humans over the course of a month with those vulnerabilities exposed and fixed?
If you're concerned about the environment, those humans commuting to work for an extra 11 months add up to far more environmental impact than the AI they used to accelerate their work. Good luck getting their employer to give them 10 months off with pay for delivering the same valuable product faster and better.
Then just let AI use AI. I'll collect my Nobel prize now thx.
You might want to rethink that position: https://www.anthropic.com/research/self-replicating-ai
Sorry, I don't really feel like reading anything from Anthropic atm (I might later, it sounds interesting), but my actual, non-sarcastic position on the matter is fuck LLMs; they should not be doing any sort of policymaking.
Long story short: AI using AI can find ways to run itself on TV set top boxes and similar common IoT devices, as part of a bot-net. It can also find ways to self-propogate such bot-nets across many surprisingly low powered and widely distributed devices in our world.
Some humans cannot own knives responsibility. It doesn't mean I have to cut the pineapple with a spoon.
Correct - knives do more good than harm, even when some people use them irresponsibly. My point is that AI doesn't; even when some people could arguably say that they use it responsibly and do good work, those that use it for slop, to perpetuate disinformation, and to further degrade our ability to think critically outweigh those people.
"Knives cause lots of stabbings, so let's ban knives"
"Guns cause a lot of shootings, so let's ban guns"
~ any reasonable country on the planet
All those things, including knives, are heavily regulated, yes.
I'm sorry, who or what exactly regulates knives? Knife manufacture? Knife ownership? Even knife sales... If you're referring to ballistic knives or switchblades, sure - those are like guns, but the 99.999% of knives in the world? The ones anybody with a piece of metal can hammer out and sharpen for themselves?
Sweden has a knife law, you can't carry knives in public without a valid reason.
In plenty of countries carrying knives in public is not allowed. You can own one for use in your home or work but don't brandish it out in the open.
The reason few people know this is because it's rarely ever needed, and the people violating that law are generally the people you want arrested anyway (e.g. because they're trying to stab someone).
I see nothing special about knives in that respect, though I have no doubt there are laws.
Making credible threats of killing or seriously injuring people, with whatever tools, would seem to be a good basis for arrest.
Nice try to equating a knife to fucking drugs. AI is even worse than drugs, is like the digital version of nuclear weaponry: it shouldn't even exist.
Every country that has legalized or decriminalized drug use and promotes safe and responsible usage with support systems such as addictions counseling and drug purity testing has shown a decrease in drug use and addiction rates and overdose deaths. Whereas the 'war on drugs' has been going strong for like 100 years and usage in the US keeps rising, deaths keep growing, addiction rates are skyrocketing... And billions of dollars go to criminal enterprises. AI is so much worse than drugs and while open source models might seem like a friendly weed dealer on the corner they're actually getting their product from the same monsters and gangsters that are selling crack to schoolchildren (those are the big AI companies).
I swear, some people still think Prohibition was a great idea.
I mean, it is how ice cream became so popular... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/ice-cream-prohibition-era-craze
However, the end of Prohibition was a much better idea than the start of it.
It was.
If the goal was to reduce the amount the average American drank alcohol year over year (and that was the goal) it was an overwhelming success; not only during prohibition but thereafter as well.
Banning stuff and then enforcing the ban works really well and we have tons of evidence of it working; not just in the US but literally world-wide.
You seem to have missed the 1001 negative side effects of Prohibition, that eclipsed the tiny ideological victory of reducing drinking.
https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/unintended-consequences
Additionally, there is no consensus on whether Prohibition was even successful at that, owing to a lack of hard data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
This is quite aside from the fact that today we've figured out that criminalising drugs and users is the wrong approach and does a lot more harm than good. But we STILL have people like you.
There's an example used in regulatory circles: electricity would never be permitted in homes under today's regulatory standards - we only accept it and its hazards because it is so incredibly common and useful in daily life and we've been accepting it since before we cared so deeply about safety.
So, have today's goalposts moved so much that "AI" no longer passes modern society's definitions of acceptable? I feel like such a technology would have been cheerfully embraced in the 1960s.