I suspect there's going to be some good people who leave, not wanting to participate in that sort of dialogue

The Codeberg blog has articles critical of AI published back in September 2024[0]:

    If they can use so much power to bring our systems down, imagine how much power they use by doing this to the entire Internet: We are concerned about the environmental and social impact of the current AI hype.
    Growth at all costs is something that we, as a non-profit, are not interested in. We believe in frugal computing and that the resources our planet provides are limited. It is no coincidence that we directly "compete" against a company that funnels billions into the AI hype.

[0] https://blog.codeberg.org/letter-from-codeberg-software-is-a...

AI is many things, and a moral choice is one of them. Codeberg's stance isn't a moral one as much as a technical one, but there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral.

    I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can go up in flames on the whims of a shadow group.

    There will inevitably be some people who dismiss this story as a dishonest marketing trick by OpenAI to make their models sound terrifyingly effective. I found 81 instances of the term “marketing” in the Hacker News discussion of the incident.
    
    To those people I say pull your heads out of the sand—you’re now including Hugging Face in your conspiracy theories, just so you can deny the crescendo of evidence here!

That's the hard truth: Vibe coders are addicted to using LLMs. You're going to reject that. You're now going straight to typing up a response about how I'm wrong. But addicts often cannot accept they are addicts. It's why the first step is always recognizing you have a problem, because even that is a hard step.

Tech is full of people who think they're smarter than everyone else, which, as always, makes you more susceptible to addiction. If you think "I'm smart, I can't get addicted. I can tell the difference." then no. No you can't.

    Writing code helps me think.

If the tools are making you worse, don't use the tools.

    The faster you realize this will never pop, the faster you realize that you too can make money in the biggest gold rush in human history.

    Gold worth tens of billions of today's US dollars was recovered, which led to great wealth for a few, though many who participated in the California gold rush earned little more than they had started with.

    The human and environmental costs of the Gold Rush were substantial. Native Americans, dependent on traditional hunting, gathering and agriculture, became the victims of starvation and disease, as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats.[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gold_rush

Every time.

It's hard to overstate the harm of the system you are building. Please understand, there is no way this idea is salvageable or any tweaks or safeguards can make it safe. If you've actually tested this on real children you've already risked extreme harm.

Please, stop.

Once the free money dries up that number will rapidly tend towards 0%.

> So how much AI usage does it make it an “AI rewrite”?

Any amount.

Sure, human error happens too, but humans take accountability. That's why accountants are a regulated profession. Until an AI company CEO is willing to go prison if the output of their model is wrong, these tools are worthless.

But don't take my word for it, head on over to Toot's own terms of service https://toot-books.pages.dev/terms#ai-not-advice

    Toot uses automated and AI systems to generate classifications and reconciliation suggestions. Output may be incomplete or wrong and must be reviewed by you.
    Toot is a software tool. It does not provide accounting, tax, legal, audit, or financial advice, and nothing it produces is a substitute for a qualified accountant or tax adviser. You are responsible for checking Output before approving it or relying on it, and for any decision you make based on it. To the extent permitted by law, we are not responsible for outcomes arising from automated Output you approve without review.

When this house of cards collapses, AI research dries up, and companies pivot to the next hype cycle there will be a generation of people left with atrophied skills and lingering addiction and psychosis. The most flexible will bounce back just fine, but many will never recover from this damage.

Sincerely, I hope you're in the former category.

A new model is released, AI fans hail it as huge shift in whatever metrics the AI vendor has gamed this time, and all criticism is shrugged off as "not up to date" and met with "try the new model!" Then, once level heads actually put the claims to the test and find it wanting, criticism is met with "you're just not using it right, you have to learn how to prompt/context/loop engineer for best results" until the next model comes out and this argument repeats.

Once this snaps, and it will snap suddenly, companies will be climbing over each other to rip out AI as fast as possible. They won't call it that, of course, you're not going to get a CEO on the news talking about how they made a mistake and it was wrong to invest so much in AI tech. But they'll mean it.

The win scenario is that the crash reduces "AI" use to near zero. Spat out into the graveyard of VC hype like blockchain and metaverse before it. Banished to an eternal unlife of scammers running call centre scams, deepfake porn producers, and the occasional "we made AI safe!" startup trying to reignite the bubble again. While companies with their business on the line clamber to announce that they don't use it.

This is a premise so fanciful this might as well start with "assume a goose that lays golden eggs" that's then been extrapolated into 100+ pages of AI generated text.

Yes, we should "give up" on using LLMs, but certainly not for a lack of "trying".