this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2026
287 points (98.3% liked)
Fuck AI
8774 readers
1756 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype.
Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- No misinformation.
- No NSFW/NSFL content without being labeled NSFW or being in an appropriately-labeled spoiler tag.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- No AI-generated content. If you want to post examples of AI failing hillariously, there are other communities for that like !ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca .
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
You can help the mod team by making your reports detailed.
Effective reports:
- "The third image is a well-known anti-semitic trope"
- "Claiming that 'agentic AI' can outperform humans at all jobs is misinformation"
Less effective reports:
- "Breaks rules"
- "Misinformation"
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If it’s a static one click product, I wouldn’t be proud of it either. That’s just slop really.
What I’m thinking of is a process, where some steps are handled by an AI, but the rest is all human. You could use an AI generated background layer in a picture. You could use generated code as a starting point, and modify it to do exactly what you want. You could dump an early draft of a story to an LLM for style polishing. The output would probably be mostly fine, but you would still want to tweak a few things here and there.
If you skip your part, you end up with slop. Sadly, that’s how most people appear to be using AI these days. If you take the time to refine the output to meet your standards, you’re doing it properly. In that case, you should be proud of your work.
Think of it like a team effort. Even though you didn't do all of it, you still did something. That something has value too. For example, building a house is a team effort. The electrician can't be proud of all of it, but they can be proud of making sure the cables, sockets and switches are installed properly. Maybe they can also be happy about the whole house to some extent. Imagine you've worked on the cables of the Sydney Opera House. You would probably feel a little bit proud.
The thing is, nobody knows how much effort I put into it versus the AI. There's just no scenario where I could proudly take credit for using AI. Either I put in tons of work but others have no idea how much work is mine vs not, or I don't do much work and I'll know I don't deserve credit.
Like I understand where you're trying to come from here but I just can't see myself winning with AI, against my own morals.
Me collaborating with a human is different. Then the other human and I will know how much work went into it, and at least two real people will share the knowledge of who did what.
How about digging a ditch with a hand shovel vs. using an excavator? About a hundred years ago, you would have hired a bunch of men to chop down a forest, and dig ditches so that the land could be turned into a field. Digging the ditches was hard work, but excavators changed that completely. What used to require 10 strong men and a week, could be done by a single excavator operator in an afternoon. The result is still pretty much the same, even though the bucket of an excavator isn't quite so precise. You still get the job done, but most of it was done by a machine. Should that one guy be proud of the work? Sure, it didn't take much time effort, and to him it was probably just afternoon like any other. A few months later, that gig begins to blend in with hundreds of others like it, so it's not going to be very significant to him. But can you still be proud of your work?
Similar kinds of shifts have happened before that, and the industrial revolution in the textile industry is clearly the most famous example of that. I'm thinking AI in similar terms, even though the details differ. There's still enough to compare. They both produce trash if you skip quality control. They both reduce the amount of time and effort required. The cheap trash is sold on Temu and dumped in the landfills of wealthy countries. Same process with proper quality control results in all sorts of nice products you would never find on Temu. I think the same logic applies to AI generated things. So far, we've seen plenty of Temu grade trash, AKA slop. There's no reason to be proud of that.
The difference here is that I know as well as everyone else that I couldn't possibly do what the excavator does with my own two hands, so the skill here becomes operating the vehicle itself. But what the LLM can do, I can do.
This is so often the argument when talking to LLM apologists/proponents, that "this is a shift just like any other before it", but it isn't. It sneakily resembles one, but it is not exactly like one. There are major differences that set it apart from previous shifts. This isn't just a "paradigm shift". We are no longer thinking of solutions on our own, so we are/will be losing the ability to do so, yet we are expected to be the judges as to whether the generated solutions are good or not. That doesn't add up.
Once a few generations of "developers" have grown up with LLMs, it'll eventually be like using a calculator to solve divisions with large numbers, yet still you have to check your work. But if you keep using the calculator, or you never even trained yourself to do the divisions by hand in the first place, you won't be able to check the solution is correct.
I can hold a shovel and dig a hole. Not as fast as an excavator, but I’ll get the job done sooner or later. I’m sure you can as well. If you want results faster, you can get a bunch of people or a single excavator. I’ve seen similar dynamics with programming too.
Yeah, totally agree with the rest though. Being qualified to evaluate the output is the main bottleneck with LLMs. Most users aren’t qualified, so they will approve all sorts of stupid nonsense while thinking it’s brilliant. If people constantly rely on LLMs to do the thinking, those skills will begin to disappear, which obviously will have serious consequences.
An excavator can also lift rocks that I can't. But that's really beside the point.
It doesn't really matter which analogy you use, the fact is that I can do what an LLM can do, in my field. I can probably do a better job, because I know more current web APIs than an LLM has had time to train on because of limited human output.
You don't get faster results with more developers though. You don't make a baby in one month with 9 mothers either. You might have seen a small increase in development time with more than one dev on a single project but that doesn't scale past more than a handful of devs, usually. At least not per feature.