[ch_fr]

This article is a rant disguised as data analysis.

I don't know how to word this in a non-confrontational, respectful way, but this article just feels like ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies" where you get to say "look, I proved with data that those people had a disproportionate reaction and have double standards, therefore anyone who dislikes LLMs or their impact are the same!". Like, sorry, I know that sounds really reductive, but this really is the vibe I get when reading this and your other replies where you repeatedly talk about "showing the hypocrisy and double standards".

The global LLM discourse has grown massive, it spans trillions of dollars in promises and investments and affects pretty much everyone, so it's the easiest thing in the world for both sides to just find some people being assholes in the other camp and say "look, here's how [other camp] behaves".

The irrational, extreme, and heinous reactions are partly bandwagoning, and you can go about your day thinking that anyone who reacts like that is evil. But if you wanna dig a bit further, you'll notice that the entire media sphere has been screaming in everyone's ears for a few years now, that they're expandable, low-value-human-capital. All the money in the world (exaggerating a little) is being spent on making sure to remind anyone who opens a computer, opens a website, looks at a billboard, or turns on his tv... that their boss really really really wants to replace them.

Now you'll say that the friendly rsync contributor has nothing to do with any of this and... well yeah he doesn't. You don't need to agree with an emotional response to understand where it's coming from, and even if you're still dead set on considering them "the enemy", then understanding why the anti-AI crowd reacts like that is STILL a positive for you.

[pie_flavor]

Why is the guy being rigorous worthy of criticism, but the guys being idiots aren't? Did you post any similar calm-down comments in either of the HN threads on the original attacks?

[ch_fr]

I am more inclined to be critical of AI boosters, so what? Am I supposed to crumble under the weight of immense cognitive dissonance because I have... a stance in the discourse?

These guys on the github thread aren't my friends, I have no concern for them embarrassing themselves or leaving a bad digital footprint by drawing ms paint gore. I also have no concern for OP, but it just so happened to be the post I found, and I just so happened to be in the mood to leave a comment.

Engaging in LLM discourse is already a waste of my time, I'm not going to waste more of it just to avoid fallacious accusations of double standards because I didn't "do the same for the other side".

[simianwords]

Strange thing to say. The post does a good job of showing that there is no evidence Claude had anything to do with the regressions.

Your problem is that this was shown? You don't value epistemics -- you care about the ideology more than truth. Even if you don't like AI you should still do it in the right way.

Your comment comes across as more unself aware and more destructive. Lets keep this place truth first and ideology second.

[runarberg]

This article merely showed that one particular sample (two releases of rsync) or not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05) on one particular metric (bugs per commit). All that says is that you cannot generalize group difference over the population using that sample.

This still leaves the anecdotal evidence. And anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and in the absence of better evidence, it is perfectly rational to react based on the evidence you do have.

[ch_fr]

Yeah yeah the usual "look, these anti-ai people are so EMOTIONAL and HYSTERICAL while we're very logical and fact-based", I've lurked for a while so I read that one plenty of times.

OP spends a lot of time time doing statistics, but when another person replies "hey, 2 claude-authored features is not really statistically significant", the author literally agrees and says "my point was to show that you can't draw conclusions". Direct quote:

> I'm only trying to show there's no evidence for the anti-AI hypothesis

---

And here's another thing. How exactly is it self-unaware to say "Hey, I get your frustration with people being assholes, I'm not excusing it, but it can never hurt to understand why some of them have become so extreme in their vitriol, here's a few reasons for their feelings".

Is "feelings" a curse word or something? What's so wrong with understanding the emotional component of the AI discourse?

Talking about "emotions" is not destructive when the topic at hand is literally people being driven by emotion under a github thread.

What the article is saying is "these people are acting irrational because they're evil and the enemy, so here's how I prove them wrong with statistics!", and my comment to the article was "hey, you seem to go with the assumption that this is all based on pure evil, here are a few reasons why people might get tired, and then angry, about this whole thing".

You quite literally exemplify my point when I said that the analysis is mostly just >ammo for your next "debate with your anti-AI ennemies", it's a tool that allows you to not engage and dismiss any argument as "not on the side of truth because not on the side of the numbers".

All of this even though, and I need to state this again, I never once rejected the analysis or the results that OP came to, all I did was point out that OP is also engaging in "us vs them" think with the occasional "wink wink, CLASSIC AI hater amirite?" sprinkled in the article.

[pie_flavor]

If someone spouts untruths, that is a failing of theirs. Talking about how there's emotions of theirs that back this promulgation of untruths, emotions which you could understand if you tried, is putting the cart before the horse. First express things that are not trivially false, then I will try to understand what you mean by it.

[ch_fr]

You keep trying to twist what I'm saying into "guys you have to be nice to the ai haters and meet them at the middle, even when they insult you :))))". Once again you have this kneejerk reaction to the words "emotions" and "feelings" as if it would make you weak to acknowledge that "humans feeling a certain way act a certain way".

I'll once again have to remind you that all of what I said was just "yeah these guys are really pissed off, here's why they might be" and never once asked any of you to agree with them, or that their conclusions about rsync were right, or anything like that.

You act like "understanding" is only ever a gift/favor you do to someone else. While it's true that in many cases it is, "understanding" can also be something that just helps you and doesn't require interaction or agreement, it's when you think "oh there's no debating with these guys so it's probably not worth it to engage" or "oh these people are talking about X but it looks like the Y underlying issue is the actual problem, so talking about X might be a waste of time".

You completely disregard human emotions as if doing so makes you stronger, but all it does is make you more confused, surprised and angry whenever you're faced with irrational reactions you can't understand.

Now if you decide to interpret all of that as me saying "I am in moral agreement with the dogpiling and the witch hunts shown in that github thread", that is a failing of yours.

[pie_flavor]

I don't think any of this relates to the post it's replying to. I appreciate the totally failed attempt to psychoanalyze my emotions, though. If you think I'm 'confused, surprised, and angry', you don't seem to be as good at the emotions thing as you keep acting like you are.

[ch_fr]

But it does relate, dunno what to tell you. You think it doesn't relate because your reasoning stops at "they're not right so there is literally nothing else that's relevant about any of this", and what I'm saying to OP is "they're not right, and here's why those people would go around being wrong on the internet, and why a big (statistically insignificant) debunk will mostly just be you preaching to the choir", I'm steering the conversation that way because I felt it would be more productive.

There's nothing more I can say that I haven't already said at this point, understanding that people have emotions (and once again, understanding!= agreement) literally has no downside for you when looking at any kind of discourse.

Call me preachy or whatever, I'm just trying to find a topic of discussion that's not just the usual yelling past eachother: "Large providers have ROI!!" vs "Large providers are in the red!!", not opening that can of worm.

[runarberg]

What in the AI discourse is trivially false? On one side we have almost all the money in the world, owners of giant social media companies, with easy access to media, who buy ads, etc. to tell you that half of us will be out of jobs in the next 6 months, that AI superinteligence is coming next year, that singularity is upon us, that Claude Mythos will cause so much harm it has to be contained, etc. etc.

I consider all of the above trivially false untruths. But on the other hand you have rsync users who are fed up with all the lies, all the propaganda, all the fear mongering brought up by literally the richest people the world has ever seen, who have experienced AI slop first hand, who have been tricked by AI music, are fed up by all the AI generated posters at their local coffee stand, have given up on trying to correct their coworkers AI generated code during peer review. And now these rsync users see AI slop has been pushed to their favorite tools, and see a new bugs popping up at the same time.

I consider the latter a completely understandable reaction. Yes they jumped to conclusion, but in doing so they have evidence. They have both anecdotal and circumstantial evidence for their conclusions. In comparison, the AI singularity people have nothing but vibes and science fiction behind their conclusions.

[bwfan123]

> "look, here's how [other camp] behaves"

Motivated reasoning in both camps.

There are folks incentivized by AI: engineers and managers working for AI related companies who justify their beliefs with selective facts. And then there are engineers who are threatened by AI and are extra-sensitive to slop.

The article is missing the point that once camps have made up their minds - no amount of analysis is going to change that.

[davrosthedalek]

Why it is probably and regrettably true that few people in camps will change their mind, data analysis can help people who haven't been captured yet to either stay away from the camps or at least fall into the "more correct" one.

Stay out of camps, people!