Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by voidUpdate 7 hours ago
Given the amount of people on HN happily using LLMs for their everyday work and extolling the virtues of LLMs, "everyone" might be a bit excessive
6 comments

I think AI optimism is an easier jump for those already immersed in computer culture, or at least the subset of that culture who view automation as a virtue.

For those either outside computer culture, or those within who might view "craft" as virtue, automating that craft is an affront.

Right now, the "automators" (pro-AI) folks seem to be pushing that culture onto the "crafters" and naturally getting pushback.

>Right now, the "automators" (pro-AI) folks seem to be pushing that culture onto the "crafters" and naturally getting pushback.

I've said this before, but generative AI proponents are walking into creative spaces with their slop and expecting to be treated as equals despite not sharing any of the same experiences or values; effectively they're trying to redefine what craft is for the original group.

Obviously this is unpopular.

HN is like the core PR platform for AI companies. Still, you can see lots of real human beings against AI here. So, I'd say most human on HN are against AI.
you can use a tool while still hating the villains in openai, anthropic, nvidia, and so on who are ruining our lives and hobbies.
How much do you really hate a company if you're still going to give them money regularly to use their products?
Corporate gives them money. I have no choice in that decision. Corporate expects me to use it. I have no choice there either.

Yes, I'm trying to leave. Guess how fun AI has made that process

I think the solution is to find a shop of like-minded individuals, unionize, and then use the tools as much or as little as you want.
speedrun unemployment and destitution for "morals"
Nothing to do with “morals,” everything to do with owning the means of production. The C-suite is only powerful on paper. They’re not the only ones who get to put their feet on the table while AI eats the world.
HN is a poor representation of the average American.
Did a recent survey posted to HN not show that 60% of people dislike it? Which means 40% either like it or don't care. That's not far from average and is a long way from everybody.
And the average American is a poor representation of everyone. The title reads “Why does everyone hate AI?” but repeatedly references surveys of Americans, not “everyone”.

Americans are outliers; the rest of the world has a much more favourable view of AI.

> AI optimism surges in Asia, unlike in the U.S.

https://restofworld.org/2026/ai-optimism-asia/

> U.S. Workers Are More Wary of AI Than Their Global Peers.

https://www.salesforce.com/news/stories/what-leaders-should-...

> Majorities of Americans have pessimistic views toward the impact of AI on internet disinformation and the job market, outpacing most of the 32 countries surveyed in the Ipsos AI Monitor 2026. Americans were also the most likely to feel AI will make their country’s economy worse. Not every country is pessimistic about AI. Americans clearly are.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/comparing-us-and-global-attitude...

US is heavy in knowledge work and has expensive labor. So AI is posed to move employment out of US and drive employment in Asia where AI manufacturing happens.

Also from your last link;

> The pessimism isn’t uniquely American. Consistent with international Ipsos polling from 2025, the U.S. sits alongside other countries in the Anglosphere – such as Canada, Australia, and Great Britain – in being more nervous and less excited about the technology.

> Put simply, AI is built on weak social pillars. Despite growing adoption, many feel that AI poses a risk not only to their jobs, but to humanity as a whole. Amid a backdrop of widespread systemic distrust, the technology feeds into Americans’ belief that the economy is “rigged for the rich and powerful.”

> Until Americans feel the upsides of AI clearly outweigh the downsides, views of AI will likely remain negative. If AI is here to stay, so too is the backlash.

I think that last piece is the key part. AI hasn’t significantly improved anything for the average American. It only poses large structural risks. So, what’s to like about AI unless you’re in Asia and stand to gain from it?

So the title should have used "most people" then?
So is Paul Krugman
Good thing he references large-scale surveys then.
There's certainly a sizeable % of silicon valley morons on HN.
The same Pew poll had some interesting data points Krugman left out

- The first data point Pew presents is ~50% of Americans use Ai chat bots

- The second data point shows 25% of those using it is for fun and entertainment (1:8 overall)

- 1/4 of Americans use it daily

Krugman lost me when he said "Ai is dishonest" as if it has intent. He makes too much rage bait these days.

English really doesn't have a good way of broadly saying "lack of a trait" that isn't "adverse to a trait". In coding we have to have specific terms for lack thereof that is distinct from "vale of zero of".

Discourse, especially around things like AI could benefit from having a term like nullhonest to enforce it is a lack of honesty as an associated concept instead of having zero honesty.

English has that for some words, like apathetic, but I would still hesitate from musing that word for Ai's "apathy" to facts and correctness.
"regularly gives you a completely bogus answer while loudly and confidently asserting it's true" might be behavior that convinces you a person is dishonest. Is it really that bad of a description if AI does the same?
yes, because it humanizes software

https://susam.net/inverse-laws-of-robotics.html

Ai is highly non-deterministic by design, it's a core feature that gives it the capabilities and drawbacks. Don't expect it to be accurate, stay HIL my friends

You suspect Paul Krugman and the rest of the lay public is familiar with this?
It is our job to educate our friends and family

Otherwise they are going to get bad notions from people like Krugman

I think you are drawing a line in the sand that is close to you, but very far away from where Krugman stands, for it to be a fair distance to cross.