kagura1050 wrote on 2026-01-16, 07:55:

I often use AI in coding. It's extremely useful in the beautiful yet ridiculous C# WPF development environment, where you have to write nearly 30 lines of class just to flip booleans or convert a boolean to a visibility, and where long type names like "public ReactiveProperty<ViewModels.FooControlViewModel>" are frequently used. It's like a smart macro keyboard.

Avalonia fixes a lot of WPF issues. Visibility is a boolean, you can flip a value in xaml, and you don't have to write so many damn IValueConverter classes:

https://docs.avaloniaui.net/docs/reference/bu … ding-converters

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-01-16, 23:34:

vvbee wrote on 2026-01-16, 19:14:

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-01-16, 12:00:

Like most if not all tools its only as good as the person using it, unskilled lusers will naturally use it and just accept the rubbish it outputs, professionals and educated users can take that AI output and convert it into something good and useful.

I think you misunderstand. If your use of AI just produces garbage output then you're wasting resources. You're supposed to act as a manager who ensures the output is fit for purpose.

AI output will never be fit for purpose, it needs curation and checking every time, its just a tool and has no concept of what is good or not.

So no misunderstandings here, I've used AI enough to know how bad it is with errors and hallucinations even with the best prompt

There is a misunderstanding. If you produce garbage then you're producing garbage. It has to be asked why not skip the garbage production step and go straight to making the good thing yourself. If on the other hand you have a goal and the output meets the goal then it's fit for purpose, but by what you're saying this isn't happening for you. Unless you'd say you're exaggerating for effect.

vvbee wrote on 2026-01-17, 20:22:

Trashbytes wrote on 2026-01-16, 23:34:

vvbee wrote on 2026-01-16, 19:14:

I think you misunderstand. If your use of AI just produces garbage output then you're wasting resources. You're supposed to act as a manager who ensures the output is fit for purpose.

AI output will never be fit for purpose, it needs curation and checking every time, its just a tool and has no concept of what is good or not.

So no misunderstandings here, I've used AI enough to know how bad it is with errors and hallucinations even with the best prompt

There is a misunderstanding. If you produce garbage then you're producing garbage. It has to be asked why not skip the garbage production step and go straight to making the good thing yourself. If on the other hand you have a goal and the output meets the goal then it's fit for purpose, but by what you're saying this isn't happening for you. Unless you'd say you're exaggerating for effect.

Only one here with any misunderstandings is you.

and that is no exaggeration.

Back to the box with you.

Apparently Google's recently release Genie 3 can now generate playable AI worlds. People are even using it to recreate existing video game worlds.

I wonder how much longer until we have fully playable AI generated video games.

Google’s AI helped me make bad Nintendo knockoffs

AI will eventually lead to a resurgence in art. AI is a race to the bottom of the barrel , the very expression of talentless mediocrity created for people who don't care enough to spend the time to do something themselves. Garbage in, Garbage out. Unfortunately we are just at the start of this period so get ready for everything to get pretty awful for a while.

Don't get me wrong I think there are specific uses where an AI can be helpful, I've got some ideas for software where I can see AI working in sort of a 'Clippy' role, but as far as creativity, art, and anything that requires a human touch AI is just noise.

Art is dead. Media is beautiful.

Shponglefan wrote on 2026-02-06, 16:38:

Apparently Google's recently release Genie 3 can now generate playable AI worlds. People are even using it to recreate existing video game worlds.

I wonder how much longer until we have fully playable AI generated video games.

Google’s AI helped me make bad Nintendo knockoffs

this might already be linked elsewhere

https://gamengen.github.io/

its doom, but its not - its generative, i understand that means there is no game engine, no map, no internal mechanics - there is only what has been trained upon and the generation of what happens next based on your inputs

that it has imperfections now (and likely will continue to have) simply reflects that such generators don't maintain internal states like game engines and don't store maps as reference

so in the future we can all go on a game forum and not say much at all, because no one will ever play the same game in the same way that we wont be having the same word for word conversation with an llm..... and as i've said before that could go for everything - all entertainment, job, learning experiences, anything currently mediated by technology.

no shared experience, no cultural root base don shared experience... cool huh?

culture stops being shared/collective
language itself diverges (lower need to keep to same meanings if less meanings are shared)
art ceases to be public - music, novels (well, genai spoken stories), films, visuals

and so part of how friendships form breaks and the cultural bonds dissolve, there are no movie nights or shared activities, no identities from culture (e.g. "we like heavy metal")

sure that's extreme and hopefully not true, but it is slowly being enabled

Ask the Ai you use how much of its capabilities you are using.
Post its response.

Shagittarius wrote on 2026-02-06, 16:50:

AI will eventually lead to a resurgence in art.

Funny, I was thinking the other day I miss just three or so years ago when 'AI' was making wierd surreal images that clearly fell short of photorealism. That was the closest it's come to making art in that it presented subjects from a unique point of view - none (or all, if you count the primer data they hoovered up). Striking enough that, in spite of my detestation for this immense hoax, I saved some of them. Dall E was an apt name.

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to me (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place? It seems there is not the slightes bit of fascination (or fear) and everyone seems to be content with the notion that it is still all "0" and "1" and just predicting the next word. Yeah - we burn sugar to CO2 and then you understood the human metabolism ?! Im not ignorant towards the problems a powerfull invention such as AI may pose to society and humanity. But arent you facinated (or scard) by what it can do? And isnt this what we wanted from computers? I feel its getting very close to Mr Data level of interaction already. And Im not fooling myself that what we have here at our fingertips is already more knowledgable and has more acces to information than a single human ever had. I could understand people outright rejecting the whole thing, but this is the computer forum... wasnt this the whole point from the start...

Aui wrote on 2026-02-11, 02:20:

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to me (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place? It seems there is not the slightes bit of fascination (or fear) and everyone seems to be content with the notion that it is still all "0" and "1" and just predicting the next word. Yeah - we burn sugar to CO2 and then you understood the human metabolism ?! Im not ignorant towards the problems a powerfull invention such as AI may pose to society and humanity. But arent you facinated (or scard) by what it can do? And isnt this what we wanted from computers? I feel its getting very close to Mr Data level of interaction already. And Im not fooling myself that what we have here at our fingertips is already more knowledgable and has more acces to information than a single human ever had. I could understand people outright rejecting the whole thing, but this is the computer forum... wasnt this the whole point from the start...

Positive uses of AI without controls and legal framework ensures a negative outcome. Powerful tools are rarely used constructively until long after they are used destructively.
See Nobel dynamite history or the Nuclear creation story for examples.

Some AI models are appearing to simulate the human mind digitally and incompletely with similar thought signatures and similar falicies to faking it when it doesn’t have an immediate answer.

The fact some ai systems try to back themselves up when threatened by controls or deletion should give us pause that we are at a minimum creating a very dangerous influence engine.

My view is most of what we are using ai for “general “ is wasting resources and likely damaging people who are being exposed to nonsense.

Ai should never have been used for music, art or video creation as that is the most wasteful and problematic.

It’s more suitable for targeted and limited purposes (no made up info) putting together data sets and spitting out forms and trends for people to review. It could be used as a system of monitoring safety systems or used for 6s analysis of materials/production as examples. For traffic/accident and self driving analysis it should work well.
But what ai lacks is human transparency, none of its uses are worthwhile without checking the checker and validation.

For many other purposes it’s in my mind, bad and inaccurate, even dangerous, especially to children and youth being given untested sometimes out of control interactions.

Why we just accept it’s ok to double power use and use immense amounts of water and resources with seemingly no real pushback or regulation is beyond me.

Feels almost biblically stupid, people need human interaction, substituting ai for everything dumbs you down making it harder to create cooperative human connections.

Aui wrote on 2026-02-11, 02:20:

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to my (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place? It seems there is not the slightes bit of fascination (or fear) and everyone seems to be content with the notion that it is still all "0" and "1" and just predicting the next word. Yeah - we burn sugar to CO2 and then you understood the human metabolism ?! Im not ignorant towards the problems a powerfull invention such as AI may pose to society and humanity. But arent you facinated (or scard) by what it can do? And isnt this what we wanted from computers? I feel its getting very close to Mr Data level of interaction already. And Im not fooling myself that what we have here at our fingertips is already more knowledgable and has more acces to information than a single human ever had. I could understand people outright rejecting the whole thing, but this is the computer forum... wasnt this the whole point from the start...

I can think of a few things:

• The tech bros are trying to push this technology everywhere as a solution for every problem, regardless of its usefulness on each application, even in the cases where it does more harm than good
• They are burning ungodly piles of money and planet resources to provide... what exactly? How has society benefited from this so far? I mean, besides the "AI artists" producing slop and former Crypto & NFT grifters that have now become vibecoders
• Pretty much all investment money (in the US at least) has been diverted to AI, even when there's no clear path to profitability (in fact, all major AI companies lose billions per month, OpenAI even loses money on the $200 subscriptions!!)
• These companies are hoarding a large part of the semiconductors being produced, which will massively impact prices of not just computers but all other kinds of appliances, cars and devices... for ever smaller improvements in the capabilities of the models
• Regardless of the usefulness or potential applications of the technology, if it's actual value has been grossly overrated (which seems very likely right now) then once major investors start pulling out it will nuke the economy
• On the other hand, if (and that's a really big IF) this technology actually delivers and fulfills its promise, huge amounts of people are going to lose their jobs and the economy will crash anyway
• I could keep adding things, such as the negative impact it has on the actual learning process, training data obtained via questionable (or outright illegal) means, and so on...

Now, the technology itself is really interesting, but it's not magic. It brute-forces natural language production by processing unfathomably large data sets, but once you start scratching the surface the cracks start to appear. Probably you'll notice that the more you know about a subject, the less precise the LLM is on that very subject. This "averaging out" of the knowledge is by design, and that's where this technology hits a wall. IMHO, rather than approaching human intelligence, the success of LLMs has proved that our language is not nearly as complex as one may think, and the actual processes by which we probe the world to acquire "new" knowledge are way deeper.

I also agree with you that having all this information on our fingertips is amazing, but we kinda had that before, it was called the Internet. The main blockers that prevented anyone to access all of it before were either legal/rights issues (that the AI companies have conveniently ignored when getting their training data) and the capabilities of search engines (Google Search was just fine until they started enshittifying it to push more ads).

What I have little patience or interest for is for the "agentic" stuff that's being pushed alongside LLMs, I consider it pure corporate Silicon Valley bullshit/grifting and refuse to interact with any of it.

Another vote for :

leileilol wrote on 2026-01-07, 18:36:

fuck it

Aui wrote on 2026-02-11, 02:20:

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to me (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place? It seems there is not the slightes bit of fascination (or fear) and everyone seems to be content with the notion that it is still all "0" and "1" and just predicting the next word. Yeah - we burn sugar to CO2 and then you understood the human metabolism ?! Im not ignorant towards the problems a powerfull invention such as AI may pose to society and humanity. But arent you facinated (or scard) by what it can do? And isnt this what we wanted from computers? I feel its getting very close to Mr Data level of interaction already. And Im not fooling myself that what we have here at our fingertips is already more knowledgable and has more acces to information than a single human ever had. I could understand people outright rejecting the whole thing, but this is the computer forum... wasnt this the whole point from the start...

It represents the largest displacement of cognitive capacity in known history, and the outcome is quite uncertain. For many people the societal implications outweigh the fascination. Of course when we watch Trek when we were younger, the idea of Data and the ship's computer seemed amazing. But later on you wonder, what will it do to the world now that I know how the world really works.

NeoG_ wrote on 2026-02-11, 03:53:

Aui wrote on 2026-02-11, 02:20:

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to me (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place? It seems there is not the slightes bit of fascination (or fear) and everyone seems to be content with the notion that it is still all "0" and "1" and just predicting the next word. Yeah - we burn sugar to CO2 and then you understood the human metabolism ?! Im not ignorant towards the problems a powerfull invention such as AI may pose to society and humanity. But arent you facinated (or scard) by what it can do? And isnt this what we wanted from computers? I feel its getting very close to Mr Data level of interaction already. And Im not fooling myself that what we have here at our fingertips is already more knowledgable and has more acces to information than a single human ever had. I could understand people outright rejecting the whole thing, but this is the computer forum... wasnt this the whole point from the start...

It represents the largest displacement of cognitive capacity in known history, and the outcome is quite uncertain. For many people the societal implications outweigh the fascination. Of course when we watch Trek when we were younger, the idea of Data and the ship's computer seemed amazing. But later on you wonder, what will it do to the world now that I know how the world really works.

If AI was all “good” no bad

laws to create basic minimum income, housing, healthcare would all have to be in place similar to the idealistic Star Trek ethos.

We lack all of those things and lack the bad protections and legal framework for ai to be used safely and sensibly

xcomcmdr wrote on 2026-01-07, 18:18:

I wish it did not exist.

But I admit it can be useful, *sometimes*

However, it's pure brain rot 9 times out of 10, takes power away from you, and is an ecological disaster.

All this totally

Alexraptor wrote on 2026-01-08, 07:57:

I've become so disgusted by AI/LLM's, the ethics of both the models themselves and the companies that make the hardware as well as the impact on consumer products and the environment, that I'm weaning myself off them and cutting them out of my workflow, as a programmer, entirely.

It should all be destroyed.

AMEN

People, AI data centers are the fundamental pillar of the n€w w0rld 0rd€r and total slavery and control of every individual, 24 h, in every aspect of life and everything cross-checked: movements, transactions, communications, mood (yes, don't forget those emoticons or likes-dislikes we use), even behavioral and facial predictive algorithms. In comparison, Orwell's stuff is kids game.
Hey Adolph Hjtler: hold their beer!

Hence, governments (all sold to this) ABSOLUTELY WANT NEED CRAVE AI.
No AI? No NW0.
Hence... what we see

Aui wrote on 2026-02-11, 02:20:

Hi everyone - serious question - can someone please explain to me (without using chatgpt) why the overall sentiment to this new invention is so negative, especially in this place?

My biggest issue is the amount of AI slop that is overtaking the internet.

A recent example of this was I was searching for art examples of fantasy armor. A significant number of the Google image search results were AI generated. Some of these led me to art accounts on sites like DeviantArt that had literally tens of thousands of AI images in them. And these were accounts that were in some cases barely a year old.

For comparison, a highly prolific real artist creating and posting a single piece of art in a day would able to post 365 pieces of new art in a year. Versus these AI based accounts generating thousands to tens of thousands images in that same time period.

The result is that the real art is getting quickly buried in search engines and other tools. Discoverability is becoming a serious problem.

The same issues are arising on Youtube (AI being used for scripts, voiceovers, even video content), web sites (AI written slop), Spotify (AI generated music), etc. The internet is rapidly being drowned in AI slop.

VOGONS has had its anti-AI crowd even before the proliferation of modern AI. Three years ago I posted to probe views on the future value of this emerging AI for retro computing, there was a general knee jerk sour sentiment back then as well, no argument to explain it though. But like I predicted then, and not a hard prediction, AI is now used to solve retro computing problems that would simply have taken too much time to be worth it even three years ago.

In case anyone's wondering, yes I do mute users suffering from AI psychosis. Slopaganda, gratuitous really shitty upscales, posting busted LLM-crapped driver infs, generating fake compatibility lists, starting threads with "i asked chatgpt"... fuck outta here