GrapheneOS (@[email protected])
grapheneos.social
@[email protected] 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.

  • stopforgettingit@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9419·
    2 days ago

    I am sure I will be down voted on Lemmy for this but using AI for development by a team who is already experienced in development of the product they are working on is not a moral failing.

    • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
      229·
      23 hours ago

      My personal experience but the people who blindly bitch about AI are, quite frankly, idiots.

      I use AI daily for work it’s an extremely helpful tool as you stated. I still have concerns with it.

      The difference is I understand human nature and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. We need governance and standards and it needs to be a utility just like hydro, water and The Internet. There also needs to be a global UBI yesterday.

      What people are bitching about with AI amount to the lack of control we the people have over it.

      I’m surprised you haven’t been downvoted but I bet I will for calling a spade a spade in these people so rigidly opposed.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.comEnglish
        6·
        13 hours ago

        I don’t think anyone is “blindly bitching”. I think people have understandable concerns regarding its development, use, and proliferation.

        The other idea that it needs to be a utility is straight from the wet dreams of every AI company. Realistically, the average person has little use for AI and it’s much more likely to be a detriment to them than otherwise. I know someone who is an exec in a big company and they get AI through their work. They use it for inane things mostly, but recently they used it to generate a list of reasons that their kids *dont need to go to school. This is an educated person with a good job who can’t figure out that AI has no idea what their kids need.

        I don’t think AI needs to be used by nearly the number of people currently using it, but my bigger concern is letting anyone, be it a private company or a government, have access to something people treat like a magic answer anything machine.

        • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          11 hours ago

          There are absolutely rabid anti-AI people on Lemmy even who think it’s just autocorrect.

        • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
          44·
          14 hours ago

          I disagree in part. Many people have replaced searching with AI.

          Take a pic of something in chatGPT. “What is this?”

          It’s highly useful in everyday life.

          The problem is that people my age were skilled before AI so it is literally just making things easier for us which is the point.

          Kids on the other hand, it is taking away their opportunity to learn as my generation did and that’s a huge problem.

          Then we get back to the underlying problem. Governance and standards.

          Should AI be allowed in school? Should companies be forced to continue entry level jobs that could be phased out by AI?

          You could ask a million questions.

          The problem with human nature is we are great at figuring out if we can do things we don’t stop to think of we should do things.

          • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.comEnglish
            41·
            13 hours ago

            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.

            • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
              22·
              9 hours ago

              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/

              • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.comEnglish
                2·
                8 hours ago

                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.

                • whoisearth@lemmy.caEnglish
                  11·
                  8 hours ago

                  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)

      • Pirate2377@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        12 hours ago

        I mostly agree, but instead of better regulating AI governments and corporations have just been using it as an excuse to lay people off