this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
646 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
82749 readers
3112 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That seems like an easy statement to prove. How many bugs were there before AI vs after?
I may be wrong, but I would guess that you haven't seen any data to back up your statement and you're basing it on your perception based on social media posts.
You see a lot of clickbait articles where the author highlights a specific patch note or vulnerability and tries to tie that to AI. They're doing that to earn revenue because anti-AI posts get traffic... they're not trying to objectively inform you about the rate of bugs in Microsoft's products. Your perception is being skewed by selection bias.
Well, that's certainly what you're doing at least.
You think I'm basing my perception based on a social media post? That's very observant.
You're right.
I am responding to a social media post and so my perception of that social media post is based on a social media post (specifically the one that I'm responding to).
The difference between my comment and their comment is that they present their statement as a fact and I indicate uncertainty.
I don't know the person, I may be wrong and they may have the statistics to back up their fact claim. Since I didn't know for sure I wrote:
This indicates that I am not confident in my answer but it is the current top hypothesis among many.
I assume (<- see, indicating uncertainty) that they don't have this data and are simply making it up.
As far as WHY they are making it up
Considering that social media is the top news source for most people. (Since this is a fact claim, here is a source: https://www.niemanlab.org/2025/06/for-the-first-time-social-media-overtakes-tv-as-americans-top-news-source/). If you don't know about a person you have to assume an average person. An average person is more likely to receive their news from social media.
I don't think it's uncontroversial to say that AI is a divisive topic online and so guessing that this person's perceptions are built on misinformation about AI posted on social media seems to be a pretty rational conclusion based on the facts that I have before me.
You sure love your weasel words.
I think maybe you don't know what 'weasel words' mean.
From Wikipedia:
There's none of that here.
Summary review:
Dear lord. You've upgraded to weasel paragraphs.
Ah, an idiot.