@bekkaboo@girlcock.club Linux itself is heavily using AI models. Therefore, every Linux distribution moving to recent kernel versions is heavily built on top of using AI models. Creating a Linux distribution not heavily using it would require a hard fork of the Linux kernel and many other projects.
It's unclear what would be accomplished by banning AI for a tiny portion of the code while continuing to use Linux, AOSP, Chromium and hundreds of other projects heavily using it. We'd still be benefiting from it.
GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.
We do not understand where you’re coming from or why you’re so incredibly angry with us. It’s not justified and does not make sense.
If you think taking a picture of something and having AI identify it for you is something that 1) people should do on a daily basis and 2) the government should support AI as a utility for, then we have such different concepts of the world we want to live in that I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement here. I cannot imagine how that would be “highly useful in everyday life” for the average person.
The whole “You could ask a million questions” while supporting the idea it should be a utility is so weird to me. Like, yes, we could ask a million questions, and I think we should before suggesting it is a service that every citizen should be somewhat entitled to access from the government in some way (with all the caveats that come with a utility etc etc). It seems like you have fallen into the trap you suggest is inherent to human nature and you haven’t bothered to ask if we should do that.
What argument do you think I’m making and what facts does it run counter to? So a lot of people use AI. That has no relevance to my point at all. Unless you’re using popularity of a tool as a proxy for if it’s good or not, it’s irrelevant to my position. Nuclear proliferation was here at one point, CFCs in everyday consumer products, smoking. There are plenty of things that were popular that we decided were not good for us as a society and we worked to make things different.
I never said it was unpopular, I said that many people using it have no real need of it and it may be doing more harm than good in many cases. I can say for a fact I know several people who use AI and are worse for doing so. Your own links suggest a majority of the people using it don’t find it actually helpful and that they want more control over their interactions with it. That doesn’t strike me as a population of people who can’t wait to embrace AI or embrace having their governments responsible for ensuring access to it. To be clear, even if they did mostly find it actually helpful, I don’t think it means that we need to be providing it.
Full disclosure, your second link was inaccessible to me so I am going off the data in the other links.
If you think taking a picture of something and having AI identify it for you is something that 1) people should do on a daily basis and 2) the government should support AI as a utility for, then we have such different concepts of the world we want to live in that I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement here. I cannot imagine how that would be “highly useful in everyday life” for the average person.
The whole “You could ask a million questions” while supporting the idea it should be a utility is so weird to me. Like, yes, we could ask a million questions, and I think we should before suggesting it is a service that every citizen should be somewhat entitled to access from the government in some way (with all the caveats that come with a utility etc etc). It seems like you have fallen into the trap you suggest is inherent to human nature and you haven’t bothered to ask if we should do that.
The problem with your argument is it runs counter to the facts.
AI adoption is here. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend that’s not so, or you can acknowledge it and know there is work still to do.
https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/artificial-intelligence-ai-usage-statistics/
https://hbr.org/2026/06/how-people-are-really-using-ai-in-2026
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/03/artificial-intelligence-in-daily-life-views-and-experiences/
What argument do you think I’m making and what facts does it run counter to? So a lot of people use AI. That has no relevance to my point at all. Unless you’re using popularity of a tool as a proxy for if it’s good or not, it’s irrelevant to my position. Nuclear proliferation was here at one point, CFCs in everyday consumer products, smoking. There are plenty of things that were popular that we decided were not good for us as a society and we worked to make things different.
I never said it was unpopular, I said that many people using it have no real need of it and it may be doing more harm than good in many cases. I can say for a fact I know several people who use AI and are worse for doing so. Your own links suggest a majority of the people using it don’t find it actually helpful and that they want more control over their interactions with it. That doesn’t strike me as a population of people who can’t wait to embrace AI or embrace having their governments responsible for ensuring access to it. To be clear, even if they did mostly find it actually helpful, I don’t think it means that we need to be providing it.
Full disclosure, your second link was inaccessible to me so I am going off the data in the other links.
If people have no need for it then they wouldn’t be using it. Full stop. I don’t get your argument.
Clearly the statistics are showing people need it. It is making tasks quicker and/or easier. That’s the point.
You thinking otherwise doesn’t change statistics.
Yes I can do the same shit without it but that means more work and more time. Why would I do that? (I’m saying this as a proxy for the average person)