What could go wrong giving one unhinged billionaire access the the collective intelligence of multiple sovereign nations.

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:

I may be wrong, but I would guess

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.

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.

I use Linux exclusively, my family’s laptops are all Linux, I self-host, etc. I’m no Microsoft fanboy, so believe me when I tell you…

…that is a stupid name and anyone using it sound like a clown.

AI’s use in industry is destructive to knowledge workers, the massive dump of capital in the computer hardware markets have caused massive disruption in secondary markets and the coming market crash will affect everyone in the world. There are plenty of easy arguments to be made against using AI.

Going into a comment section and posting “Well, acktually, you mean MicroSLOP!” does none of that. It’s performative, not substantive.

(I mean on OG reddit, where people would ironically make up conspiracies (like birds aren’t real (which they aren’t, but it was first discovered on r/conspiracy unironically [wake up sheeple])))

That is certainly true and may very well be the case here.

It could also be the case that a human developer forgot to bounds check an array and iterated out of bounds, corrupting some important kernel variable. We won’t know unless we get a postmortem.

This is good r/conspiracy (I mean on OG reddit, where people would ironically make up conspiracies (like birds aren’t real (which they aren’t, but it was first discovered on r/conspiracy unironically [wake up sheeple]))) material.

Like any good conspiracy, mixing factual statements into the conspiracy makes the bullshit taste better… so to speak.

I stopped the tailscale service…

… while ssh’d through the tailscale interface.

Luckily, it was my home server and I had to drive there anyway.

I like how, once AI is invented, there is never a problem that isn’t AI related.

Microsoft made broken shit before AI, it isn’t like they suddenly lost that capability once AI was invented.

Anti-AI drones are constantly trying to push into unrelated communities with their nonsense.

This isn’t a Linux meme

I don’t see the point in hiding it other than being somewhat petty.

The point in hiding it was that it was being used, without harassment or complaint, right up until he added attribution which resulted in an avalanche of complaints which require resources to deal with. Discord, the forums and Github pull requests now require much more moderation labor, which takes away from the project.

People had no complaints about the code quality until he started adding AI attribution. So he removed the attribution.

Like he said, if people can’t tell the difference until he started marking the code AI assisted… then they don’t actually have an argument and are simply bringing anti-AI politics into the project.

If there’s no difference in quality why obfuscate it? Why hide something that you think is a valuable tool if your code can speak for

The timeline was that he started adding attribution indicating the use of AI.

Then the anti-AI drones started bombarding the Github, Discord and forums with harassment. His recent statements and removal of attribution are entirely addressed at and because of the anti-AI people harassing the project staff.

He’s not removing it and saying ‘fuck you’ to the users. He’s tired of being harassed by third parties who are not involved with the project in any way and so he removed the source of the harassment.

I agree.

If you read the anti-AI comments you’ll find that when they say ‘AI’ they mean ‘LLMs fine tuned to be chatbots’ and ‘Diffusion models which generate bitmaps or video files’

They’re seemingly ignorant of all of the other things that Transformers and Deep Neural Networks are used for.

Remember how there were all of these projects trying to crowd source an algorithm to fold proteins given an amino acid sequence? Well, a trained neural network ‘AI’ called Alphafold was created and it can complete the task with >90% accuracy. THEN, using a network like AlphaFold another group of scientists made a diffusion model that could be prompted with protein parameters and then generate the string of amino acids which would fold into that protein.

I find it hard to believe that the ‘fuck AI’ crowd understands that ‘AI’ is completely separate from the capitalist frenzy over chatbots and image generation. The vast majority of their complaints are not about the technology, they are about assholes who have a lot of money that are abusing and overhyping the technology in order to get more money.

It seems like you’re glossing over the fact that he was including authorship until he was targeted with a harassment campaign by the anti-ai nutjobs.

He removed authorship in response to being harassed. His point was that including authorship has only led to harassment which takes resources away from the actual project. If a person can’t tell that the code was AI generated with out a ‘Generated by Claude Code’ tag then their complaints about AI’s quality seem to fall flat.

Out of many more ethical models out there, why go with that one specifically?

Because it is the better tool in the usecase that he is engaging with.

You’re setting up an impossible standard, one that you don’t follow yourself.

You know that Social Media is used to spread propaganda throughout the world, leading to hate crimes, genocides, wars, sexual exploitation etc. You’re still using social media. There are many more ethical ways to talk to people, why go with social media specifically?

All you’ve discovered is that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. You can take anything that a person does and trace the supply chain to find examples of wholly immoral behavior. Unless you plan on living in a cave, you’re going to appear like a hypocrite at the very least if you start picking apart the choices of others under that lens.

A rational person would question why they have beliefs that, when confronted with evidence against those beliefs they believe the evidence is wrong and not their beliefs.

It could indicate that the person’s beliefs are not built on rational grounds.

That’s twisting the order of events.

The developer was marking code when AI was used.

Anti-AI drones started harassing him in Discord, the forums and Github PRs

The developer stopped marking code when AI was used.

The Anti-AI assholes are not participating in development in good faith, this is a harassment campaign. He’s taking steps to mitigate the harassment.

The fault and blame here is entirely on the people who thought it was okay to dog pile on a volunteer developer.