[kfreds]

Obviously it’s far more nuanced than that. I’d say there are several categories where a reasonable person could have reservations (or not) about LLMs:

Copyright issues (related to training data and inference), openness (OSS, model parameters, training data), sovereignty (geopolitically, individually), privacy, deskilling, manipulation (with or without human intent), AGI doom. I have a list but not in front of me right now.

[stavros]

Yes, and those are interesting topics to discuss. "AI is useless and I refuse to use it and hate you if you do" isn't, yet look at most of the replies here.

[simoncion]

> Yes, and those are interesting topics to discuss. "AI is useless and I refuse to use it and hate you if you do" isn't...

Did you read Mr. Bushell's policy [0], which is linked to by TFA? Here's a very relevant pair of sentences from the document:

  Whilst I abstain from AI usage, I will continue to work with clients and colleagues who choose to use AI themselves. Where necessary I will integrate AI output given by others on the agreement that I am not held accountable for the combined work.

And from the "Ensloppification" article [1], also linked by TFA:

  I’d say [Declan] Chidlow verges towards AI apologism in places but overall writes a rational piece. [2] My key takeaway is to avoid hostility towards individuals†. I don’t believe I’ve ever crossed that line, except the time I attacked you [3] for ruining the web.
  
  † I reserve the right to “punch up” and call individuals like Sam Altman a grifter in clown’s garb.

Based on this information, it doesn't seem that Mr. Bushell will hate anyone for using "AI" tools... unless they're CEO pushers.

Or are you talking in generalities? If you are, then I find the unending stream of hype articles from folks using this quarter's hottest tool to be extremely disinteresting. It's important for folks who object to the LLM hype train to publish and publicize articles as a counterpoint to the prevailing discussion.

As an aside, the LLM hype reminds me of the hype for Kubernetes (which I was personally enmeshed in for a great many years), as well as the Metaverse and various varieties of Blockchain hype (which I was merely a bystander for).

[0] <https://dbushell.com/ai/>

[1] <https://dbushell.com/2025/05/30/ensloppification/>

[2] link in the pull quote being discussed to: <https://vale.rocks/posts/ai-criticism>

[3] inline link to: <https://dbushell.com/2025/05/15/slopaganda/>

[tags2k]

That's a very thorough takedown of something the guy you're replying to never said. The end of their comment was "yet look at most of the replies here".

[simoncion]

> That's a very thorough takedown of something the guy you're replying to never said.

Nah. Consider the context:

  Aren't we all tired by this anti-AI stuff?
  "Look at how I use this cool new technology" tends to be much more interesting to me than "this new technology has changed my job and I refuse to use it because I'm afraid".
  [Copyright concerns, openness, sovereignty, privacy, deskilling, manipulation and AGI doom] are interesting topics to discuss. "AI is useless and I refuse to use it and hate you if you do" isn't, yet look at most of the replies here.

This trail of complaints was about the article from which I quoted.

Given the opinion on anti-"AI" articles suggested by that trail of complaints, I'd wager he either didn't read, or didn't thoroughly read the article and the supporting materials it links to. That's totally fine; but do folks the courtesy of going back and reading more carefully (or at all) when someone indicates that one's understanding of the material is substantially incorrect.

[bdangubic]

I hope we’ll eventually reach enough fatigue that either of the two gets 0 comments and we move on