Yeah I had one trying to start an initiative to add them and when I asked how they know if they’re doing anything he was completely at a loss for words. It is just cargo cult mentality.

It’s literally researchers doing research which the blog links to. Most of the AI booster stuff is completely unsubstantiated, and it turns out when you measure things they are often full of shit.

They found it mostly just increases token spend.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/08/27/your-agents-md-file-doesnt-actually-do-anything/

If open AI did cybercrime they should be prosecuted, plain and simple.

Not speaking up when projects look like they could be about to make a mistep would just result in them not knowing that/how much people care? Why should people be silent if there is a chance to divert mistakes?

Did you stop reading there? Here is your quote + the next paragraph

So yeah, bad stuff. I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.

I also understand why a lot of experts in their field really like LLMs. These are very powerful and sophisticated tools. Capable people with decades of experience can successfully automate away a lot of tedious work, and still end up with a final product identical to what they would have done by hand.

I don’t think that conclusion is even accurate and it’s certainly the subject of much debate. He then crunches all of both negative and positive into a 5 bullet list that makes it look much more balanced:

• Very powerful
• Genuinely useful for various things
• Dangerous, de-skilling, and/or addictive in the wrong hands
• Full of really bad externalities
• Broadly available worldwide at effectively zero cost

You’re apparently reading it differently but it looks to me like half the article is trying to funnel into justifying making this a difficult decision after making the case for it really not to be up front. Why do that?

He can give 13 clearly articulated and factual reasons not to use LLMs and 1 nebulous opinion-based reason to use them yet gives them equal weight on the scale 🤔

One would think the following would be reason for a project such as KDE to ban them outright at least until the dust settles.

The license of source code they produce is legally unclear.

there are models trained on only licensed data, and it’s possible to train and run models locally for the specific tasks that it is good for

No one is doing this for programming. People love to make this argument then then turn around and use claude or something

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

LOL very mature! Have a nice day, friend

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/HDR#Firefox

Brave

Always amusing you people gravitate to the cryptoscam browser.

Removed by mod

Firefox actually picked up on good improvements at around the same they started with the AI stuff. Tab groups and vertical tabs were something people wanted forever and they implemented excellently. Firefox does have HDR.

I don’t know if firefox is slower than chromium in benchmarks or something but it’s certainly not noticeable to me in real usage.

By all means criticize AI features, but please don’t lie about everything else.

Settings -> AI Controls

path a: toggle “block AI enhancements” which turns them all off and blocks future ones by default. You can scroll down and enable specific ones if you like even with block on

Path b: scroll down and disable the specific ones you don’t want

Then we’ve narrowed the disagreement quite a bit. You accept that LLMs can be used effectively,

I never said they couldn’t. In fact, saying as much was the first thing I said to you

restating your conclusion baselessly

My observations have just as much merit as your speculation that somehow companies by default make good decisions. I don’t know why you have it stuck in your head that is a valid logical foundation, but you are incorrect.

In any case, you clearly don’t have anything else to offer, so I think we’re done here. Have a nice day!

At most, it shows the gains are task-dependent and easy to misuse.

I agree. They’re far far more often misused than used effectively, however.

thousands of companies are all independently making the same stupid decision, spending real money on tools that provide no value, while you’ve correctly identified what they’ve all somehow missed.

Yes, this is obvious for anyone that has eyes and isn’t a sycophant.

doing the same shit slightly faster.

That is also just an assertion.

If they were true, nobody would be using them. Millions upon millions of people are using them every day?

The fact people do something doesn’t say much about it. A lot of things people do things just because they feel good, like alcohol or tobacco, and for a certain type of person, chatgpt. There are also other incentives than productivity to use LLMs. 90% of c-suite people drool at the thought of firing people and started pushing top-down for people to use them without ever measuring if it actually increased productivity.

Even for software development, probably one of the more impressive uses for LLMs despite them still actually tanking quality in the process, actually measuring people using them showed them thinking they were working faster but actually working slower.