If the code is obvious crap, it doesn’t matter if AI was involved. If the code is perfectly obviously fine, it doesn’t (directly) matter if AI was involved.
In the grey area in between, if someone doesn’t say AI was involved it might mean AI was used undisclosed to vibe code the result from beginning to end. If someone said AI was involved, it might mean AI was used solely to speed up testing to track down the cause of the bug. In the former case, you’ll get nothing useful out of the submitter; in the latter case the submitter can engage usefully in pushback on their proposed flawed fix. In neither case did the AI disclosure (or lack thereof) actually help.
And that’s more or less where this news comes from - the tool usage disclosure turned out to not be useful, partly due to the vagueness of the method of disclosure (a tag in the commit message), partly due to people not reliably following the requirement, so they decided to stop requiring it.
I’m not going to start using AI voluntarily any time soon, but I’m also not going to start panicking that the kernel is suddenly completely turned into vibe coded AI slop like so many crazy people seem to have been doing lately.
honestly the code should be stood behind by the developer. then it won’t matter. and by stood behind, i mean responsible for the outcome as if they wrote it, able to explain exactly what the code does, how it does it. and have been reviewed before deployment. often times that takes longer then just coding it yourself
you can’t use ai as a scape goat when the code does not work.
Exactly. While I do have issues with the ethical and environmental aspects of AI, I do believe that many of the criticisms are disingenuous. Some made me wonder if the one criticizing never worked in a real dev project and just parroting
Bad developer have been copy pasting from stack overflow, writing slop, not following documentation/standards for years. This will never go away.
AI can do amazing good stuff, keeping the exit criterias checked, act as a second opinion, verifying upstreams and helping building a good prototype. making harnesses, hell even find a forgotten RAII pointer or concurrency.
But it can also lead to making gibberish that no one understands, mess up with productivity factor (if someone do code fast, why dont you??) and many other issue.
I think its all about approaching how we can gatekeep the bad code, instead of trying to pin how it was made.
Exactly, that’s the only rational way to look at it. The person submitting the code is responsible for it. Period. How they went about producing it is their own business, but they are the one who takes ownership of the result.
Holy fucking shit… rational conversations when talking about AI tool usage on Lemmy? WTF?!
it is rare 🤣
This was only keeping honest people honest.
I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it before or after it has been merged.
That’s a sensible stance and I don’t disagree in principle, the problem is that I feel there are too few people that fall into that camp and a fair amount of them have had their brains absolutely cooked and believe they do, while they absolutely do not.
Of course I don’t have any real data to back those assumptions up, it’s not the kind of thing you’re going to get solid data on, mostly just observations. I’d like to think the Linux kernel devs are a cut above, but given the state of things my faith is in the gutter.
So your stance is “trust without verification”.
This will be fun when it inevitably blows up in all of our faces.
AI literally atrophies your brain.
Linus Torvalds ego has betrayed him, no one is perfect.
I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understand the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it
So your stance is “trust without verification”.
I’m curious how you came to this conclusion
So your stance is “trust without verification”.
No. The reviewer is going to ask the submitter questions about the code and the submitter needs to be able to answer them in a way the reviewer is comfortable seeing it merged.
Linus going beastmmode
"
Linus Torvalds responded with an emphatic rejection of tool usage declarations.
He wrote:
What you are about is something entirely different. It has nothing to do with “expectations”, and it has everything to do with your hangups.
I don’t understand this whole idiotic concept of “don’t use AI for X”.
Here’s a new rule just for you: don’t use compilers for any of your kernel submissions.
Because if you can’t show that you really understand what the machine is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don’t want to see your code contribution. You clearly aren’t competent if you can’t write it that way.
And btw, you had better not use an editor to write that commit message either.
Because I need you to show me that you can actually write a good commit message without using tools that make it easy to backspace and hide the mistakes you made while typing.
Ok?
Because otherwise those tool-assisted commits of yours clearly aren’t showing that you know what you are doing.
Do you not see how UTTERLY STUPID those kinds of rules would be?
So no. We’re not going to make stupid rules that say “you can’t use tools for X”.
The kind of expectations I have is that people do their best and I expect people to understand what they are doing.
But that understanding has very little to do with what tools they use.
And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools. ®
"
The open source software movement was very much founded on the idea of being concerned about what kinds of tools we use as a society. Software that’s “just a tool” can lock you down and out of what you can do with it. Same argument can just as well be made that people were “shying away from using new and interesting tools” by running free software instead of Microsoft’s new priority stuff that locks you in
AI similarly gives massive control to a handful of companies. They have already used that leverage to intentionally sandbag tasks without telling you, when they think it’s against their economic interests (model distillation and AI research). Is it not possible to imagine that goes further, they would use that leverage to slip in backdoor, not report classes of bugs, etc.?
Software that’s “just a tool” can lock you down and out of what you can do with it.
AI is not “just a tool”. It is highly unethical.
It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.
Linus seems to ignore that or does not care about it.
It harms the environment, it harms actual developers, it introduces all sorts of legal issues where copyright is only one of them, it locks you in to a vendor, it makes you dependent of giant tech companies that steal your data and want to monetize your work.
Could you elaborate on this a little? I came here as I’m not very knowledgable when it comes to AI and am genuinely curious. Sadly you’re the only person I’ve seen so far that has made coherent (even if broad) arguments against AI.
I know the environment argument is probably the enormous power demand of AI, and as far as the copyright thing goes, I’ve seen first hand how people abuse voice actors’ livelihoods with shitty imitations of their voices that are also completely devoid of anything resembling skill. But how does AI harm developers, lock you in to a specific vendor or make you dependant on giant tech companies?
LLMs and machine learning techniques are just a tool. This iteration of frontier AI was harmfully developed by bad people. IMO it’s important to recognize the underlying technology as being useful while focusing on the current crop of products and companies as the problem.
Torvalds has never been a Free Software guy. Open source is a convenience to him. Why should he allow blobs in the kernel otherwise? They do the job and arguably don’t violate the GPL. That’s all he’s ever been concerned with.
Torvalds has never been a Free Software guy.
That’s all I need to know.
Do explain how open models like Qwen that you can run locally give massive control to handful of companies. In fact, what seems obvious is that using and improving these models is precisely what takes control away from these companies. People who started the free software movement didn’t cry like a bunch children about how much they hated software. They had the brains to understand the problem wasn’t the software itself, but rather who controls it. So, they went out and built open versions of the software that weren’t corporate owned. And try guess what tools they used initially to do that since open software didn’t exist yet. Your mind is about to be blown.
Only a handful of companies make open weight models, and those models are not made for charity. They want either market share and/or control. Making your own model is not like making your own software because the capital cost are extraordinarily high. The masses will not have the billions in funds they would need need to train these models
Unlike open source code, you cannot check what’s actually in the open weight models. Worse still, you can hide things that trigger on very specific words (poison attacks can be intentional by the model maker or put by other actors in the public data). Fine tuning attempts are also no escape from hidden features you don’t even know to look for
The reason Chinese companies are making open models is very simple actually, and has fuck all to do with charity. LLMs are a form of a general commodity, and it’s not a viable business model to monetize them directly. Trying to compete on model quality is a race to the bottom. Anything one lab can do, others can figure out a few months later. So, you have to keep investing more and more money just to keep ahead. Chinese companies realized this early, and that’s why they release the model in the open, aiming for the high end of the value chain building customized services and integrations tha capture the market. My expectation is that LLMs will become like Linux where nobody really makes any money off the tech directly. But you’ll see platforms like AWS built on top of it.
Also, not sure what the rationale for companies releasing open models would be to trigger some unspecified poisoning in a coding model. Like what exactly is it gonna do when running locally?
Meanwhile, you absolutely can inspect the weights and there are now plenty of tools for doing just that. It’s an active area of research, but these things aren’t black boxes people make them out to be.
Finally, there are completely open models as well with training data, and source released in the open. None of them are frontier quality, but they are certainly a starting point.
There also projects like petals for doing distributed training. There’s absolutely no reason why you can’t have something like SETI@home for training models on a network. This is what people should be putting their energy into instead of whinging endlessly, as if OpenAI or Anthropic give a flying fuck that some brave lib made yet another ‘AI slop’ comment on a niche social media platform.
and has fuck all to do with charity
That’s what I said?
you absolutely can inspect the weights
Current techniques cannot give you anything close to the level of inspection you can with software. Worse still, techniques of frontier AI labs are moving in the opposite direction with it getting harder to understand over time and less going into things like chain of thought
There also projects like petals for doing distributed training
You always be at a massive disadvantage because of the severally more limited compute available. Additionally, distributed computing not inside the same data center adds massively increased latency
Training a model also does nothing for the environmental side of things and just makes things worse
instead of whinging endlessly as if OpenAI or Anthropic give a flying fuck that some brave lib made yet another ‘AI slop’ comment on a niche social media platform.
That’s 100% missing the point. The point is to not encourage more people to use the tool that gives control to Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. Social stigma and pushback is the point. People use things less when it’s seen as uncool. Normalizing AI use just means it’s going to be used more against your interests
That’s what I said?
No, I’m countering what you said by pointing out that there are rational reasons for companies to put models out in the open.
Current techniques cannot give you anything close to the level of inspection you can with software.
So, that just means people need to put the work into improving the techniques. That’s how problems are solved. Last I looked, models like Qwen are actually becoming easier to understand as the article I linked explains.
You always be at a massive disadvantage because of the severally more limited compute available.
Not really because you’d be leveraging a global compute cluster and amortizing the work. But the thing is that it’s not even a competition. Local models just need to be good enough to use. The same way my I don’t need to have a supercomputer at home for my needs, I don’t need a frontier model either. A model like Qwen is already plenty useful, and they will only get better.
raining a model also does nothing for the environmental side of things and just makes things worse
That’s going to continue to happen regardless of how much whinging you do. The question is whether models will be owned by corps or by the public.
The point is to not encourage more people to use the tool that gives control to Anthropic, OpenAI, etc.
You already lost this battle. And on top of that, as you so glibly pointed out in your other reply, an insane amount of money is going into these companies. So these models will obviously continue to be trained and operated. This is the reality:
Normalizing whinging about AI without doing anything productive just means that people who share none of your concerns will be the ones developing it.
I don’t think this is a good faith conversation if we are going to continue to call it being massively used against workers and our overall society just “whining”. I was going to respond with all the other negative effects on human cognition from AI which do not go away no matter who makes it, but I see little point to continuing this
These risks are not different from before and still open source has the advantage of being open to anyone and any agent.
Kernel modules written by US employees with unknown ties to US intelligence was just as much at risk for containing a backdoor as if written by an agent using an LLM with US intelligence ties.
And in both cases intelligence actors or security researchers from around the world can review it all and try to spot backdoors. So can agents with different LLMs behind them.
It would be an issue if there was only one state sanctioned LLM available, but as long as there is world wide competition in training LLMs, opensource will be “reviewed” with competing interests in “mind”.
based linus
Wow, he’s such an asshole.
Wow, that’s an incredibly stupid take. Like, the kind that you generally expect from brainwashed dumbasses that don’t even know what is the difference between a screen and a computer.
That’s scary that people would listen to a guy that completely lost his understanding of reality.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid” - your brain on idealism
Isn’t that basically what Linus is saying too, in this quote?
“Everyone who disagrees with me is stupid” - your brain on slop machines
Like that’s Linus’s entire point. “I’m smart, you’re dumb. Fall in line”. Not great
Nah, Linus’s entire point is that LLMs are just a tool people use to build things, and drawing some arbitrary line between the tools you’re used to and ones you’re not is idiotic.
That’s not really beast mode. That’s a guy with a god complex not understanding the problem after refusing to acknowledge he’s not the only one who cares about Linux for the past twenty years.
the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.
You know who else isn’t shying away from the new tools? Trump and his cronies. Like this argument means literally nothing. People like Peter Thiel have said they want the world to end, these are the lines of people not shying away from the tools that Torvalds is aligning himself with.
Dude needs to fuck off and stop being a single point of failure.
You know who else isn’t shying away from the new tools? Trump and his cronies.
Hard to think of a poorer argument against AI use.
In line with the rest of the comments here so far where there’s lots of anti AI rage but little to no coherent arguments that specify how Linus using AI to code is a bad thing. No specifics, lots of vague beating around the bush, highly emotive language.
My point wasn’t to lay out every argument against using LLMs. That’s been done ad nauseum elsewhere (not this comment thread no but other communities).
My point was his supposed beast mode was a poor argument for them by pointing out the exact same argument works both ways. Both smart people and dumb people are using them.
And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.
(But) Both smart people and dumb people are using them
This is not the gotcha you seem to think it is…
What the fuck are you on about? There is so much myopia here from you it’s not even funny. These tools are not going to go away. This is like saying Peter Thiel uses Javascript
If you think I’m arguing here that they’re gonna go away then please, please, please, go take a reading comprehension class.
I’m arguing Linus’s point that smart people use LLMs is a piss take that shows zero understanding of the world around him. That’s it.
I just also happen to wish LLMs would go away for moral and ecological reasons.
I’m arguing Linus’s point that smart people use LLMs is a piss take that shows zero understanding of the world around him. That’s it.
That itself is a piss take from you. What projects have you used LLM’s in for code assist activities (and I’m not talking vibecode slop)?
Ahhhhh fuck bro. I didn’t know trump used AI. Does he use computers too? I already stopped using a phone and diapers because I saw him using them.
Ahhhh fuck bro. I’m sorry you’re too busy meming to comprehend a point.
Linuslop Rustokenvalds
Fuck.
Let’s hope for a slop-free fork or the old man changing his mind on this bullshit.
The former seems unlikely to happen (or at least for the long term).
Edit: other relevant post
If people are hurt enough, they will push towards it.
While I totally disagree with both, there are distributions without systemd and there are NEW projects that keep X11 alive and shun Wayland.
Something like this could happen with the Kernel. I’m not the one doing it because while I dislike Linus’ pro-slop stance I don’t really care enough for actively working on something like that…
But if available I’d install it instead of the slop Kernel.
Somehow doubt that a bunch of whingers are going to fork Linux successfully, but I’ll wait to be proven wrong.
Y’know how you’re not supposed to just yell “somebody do something” in an emergency situation? If I ever hear someone yell such a thing, I’m going to be the “somebody”.
I am going to fork Linux.
have fun
Thanks; I shall ^^
That’s why I got into compsci and programming. It’s fun :3
or maybe just time to grow up
This is the kind of arguments people made against the free-software movement in the first place. That it’s somehow more mature to not care about consequences of what we do and how we do it
I think it’s exactly the other way around
The difference is that free-software movement is about rolling up your sleeves and actually making alternatives as opposed to throwing a tantrum like spoiled children which is what you all are. You lot are just a modern day iteration of Luddites who were raging against the technology as opposed to social relations that resulted in the technology being used in abusive ways. And lacking basic understanding of the problem you are doomed to fail the same way as your predecessors.
The comparison to the luddites is interesting as you’re tacitly saying “no you guys are right but your fucked anyway”.
There is no good end with this technology. None. It will be used to abuse the working class, it will alienate workers from their labor, and it will bring an enormous amount of harm to vast numbers of people. This technology gives nothing in return for this loss except the ability to consume faster.
These discussions never focus on the fact that this tool optimizes the, already, most efficient part of the human supply chain, ideation and design. This tool does not make any of the other bottlenecks that slow human progress faster, those being implementation, adoption, and translation of solutions to different environments. The human race had the tools to solve world hunger shortly after the invention of nitrogenated fertilizer; yet here we are. The human race created a source of nearly infinite clean energy with negative temperature-coefficient fission reactors; yet here we are.
But you’re ultimately right. The luddites lost, we’ll lose, and we’re fucked.
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. The Luddites were highly skilled workers, who saw a few capitalists growing rich by introducing machinery to substitute for their own skill. So, they set to work to burn the factories down thinking that if they could destroy the machines, the problem would be solved. But technological advances could not be stopped by mere vandalism. The Luddites ultimately failed in their efforts because they failed to grasp the material forces driving the march of history. The machines prevailed because the ruling class wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The evils of the Industrial Revolution grew out of the possession of the means of production which grants the power to determine how technology is used. The same is true today, and it is why similar attempts to boycott AI are doomed to fail. Those who want to stop these systems from being put into production are merely attacking the symptoms of the underlying material relations.
It is not the inherent qualities of machinery that should be condemned here, but rather the class relations within which it happens to be applied. This is precisely what Marx articulated showing that technology does not exist as an isolated phenomenon, but is dominated by the social structure of the society in which it happens to occur. To control the means of production collectively is to make technology serve human needs rather than merely increase the profits of the rich. That is the very lesson that the Luddites missed, and that a great many critics of AI are missing today as well.
The rational strategy for those who have come to the conclusion that corporate AI cannot be trusted, which is itself very much a correct one, should be to focus their energy on ways to develop this technology outside the stranglehold of corporations. We already have a powerful example in the form of open source software. And with the release of Chinese model weights, there is a solid foundation to build upon.
The more open models are used, the less demand there will be for the proprietary ones. These models are the tools that people can run on their own machines, and under their own control. Developing and using open alternatives to paid APIs cuts directly into the profits of the corporations renting out LLMs. A mere boycott will not alter the balance of economic forces or change the status quo. If you want to resist, do it constructively by encouraging the use and development of this technology in the open.
While I agree with your materialist assessment here comrade my primary point of contention is the incentive structure present in these tools. As Iris best put it in her comparison to Heidegger’s human-gestalt model, the human-llm gestalt is an ugly one.
We are on the same page as to the failures of the luddites, my argument is that these tools are anti-worker at their core. Even if the tools are cheap and abundant that would not resolve the fact that they alienate workers from their labor to a degree that can only be mitigated with heavy amounts of regulation and restriction. In contrast your position my take is not that an abundance of the tool will democratize its use, its that the only way to use it safely is with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This is fun :)
my argument is that these tools are anti-worker at their core
But do we even want to be workers? I don’t. I have to be worker.
We shouldn’t be fighting parts of a broken or rather unfair system, but the system. I don’t want to fight for my place at the bottom of a pit.
But the incentive structure is only present in the corporate versions of these tools. I’m advocating for building these tools in the open, and we don’t have to mirror what corps are doing. I disagree that these tools are anti-worker at their core, they’re just another form of automation. And we have a concrete example of what happens when this technology is introduced in a rational fashion with China.
Every form of automation will be used to alienate and atomize workers under capitalism, but it’s obviously worse if these tools are also controlled by corporations which will decide who uses these tools and how they use them. While we continue to live under a capitalist regime, open source approach at least helps mitigate the worst ills. On top of that, it directly cuts into the business model of these companies.
Open models are what actually scares them and they state is plainly. We only have to listen to what these companies are saying themselves. They don’t care about boycotts, or some online activism, but they are lobbying to ban open models, and that tells you everything you need to know.
They were not “against technology”, that was the propaganda of the ruling class which still gets repeated today. The Luddites were put down by militarily and violently killed. They didn’t fail because they weren’t publicly supported (they were wildly popular) or weren’t against the social relations (they very much were)
Building frontier AI models cost billions of dollars in capital. Any solution involves raising that kind of money, the forces of the money will be put right back against you. It’s also just as likely to be banned if it’s seen as a big enough threat.
The Luddites were skilled artisans, who saw a few capitalists growing rich by introducing machinery to destroy their guilds. So, they set to work to smash the machines thinking that if they could destroy the technology, their artisanal guilds would be saved. And they were predictably crushed by state violence. The machines prevailed because the ruling class wanted to cut costs and increase profits. The same is true today, and those who want to stop these systems from being put into production are merely attacking the symptoms of the underlying material relations.
Also, you’re simply confusing the fact that the US is in a bubble with what it takes to develop new technology. Listening to you, one would think Linux could have never been developed because Microsoft put billions into Windows.
https://hai.stanford.edu/news/inside-the-ai-index-12-takeaways-from-the-2026-report
Also, highly unlikely they would get banned, because there’s a huge amount of capital in the US now being invested in companies using open models already. But even if the burger reich banned them why should I give a fuck, I don’t live in that shithole.
Compute is the bottleneck for AI, not labor. Linux was able to develop more because of the labor being done by huge number of people for free and from those employed by other companies working on it. If AI keeps accelerating on the same trajectory, there is little reason to hope for it to get better as the models get larger and training costs get higher
The Luddites were not just smashing machines, they had a list of demands they were trying to build pressure for. They were also trying to get the rights for unions, strikes, abolishing child labor, minimum wages and the things like that which shifted powers back into the favor of workers. They had tried petitioning governments for that for a while before they started smashing things
If the US bans open-weight models, you don’t think a large number of countries would be heavily pressured by industry to do the same?
I think the US banning open-weight/open-source models could be a real concern. Anthropic is certainly pushing for it with their weird self-propagating local open-weight worm in smart TVs narrative that makes little sense. But I don’t think other countries would follow suit, because it wouldn’t be in their interest, given that they are not currently in control of the frontier models and open models giving them an edge.
Remember SETI@home? If compute is the bottleneck, why shouldn’t people all over the world get together to train their own models? Cyber security would be a concern, of course. Such a cluster could be misused. And the underlying question of copyright remains. But if lots of people were able to get together to create open-source software, lots of people can get together to train better, transparent models. The EU also offers free training clusters if you apply, if I’m not mistaken. I also read about an open-source LLM somewhere. Not only open-weight, open-source. Can’t recall right now. Mistral 4 Large and Kolibri 1 are interesting open-weight models. Lots to come.
I also think that making the technology your own is the best way to tackle the big American corps and their proprietary models.
What part of distributed systems are you still struggling with here? Also, models are getting incredibly more efficient every few months. Qwen 3.8 that runs on a laptop today is comparable to Opus 4.6 from around half a year ago which needed a whole data centre.
People working on local models don’t need to compete with whatever the big corps are doing, they just need to make tools that are good enough to use on your machine. Just the same way Linux didn’t have to do everything Windows did to become usable.
And yeah, Luddites had lists of demands just you do, how’s that work out for them?
And if the US somehow did ban open models, I’m sure the vassals would as well, but again who gives a fuck? The whole west is like 13% of the global population. And it’s imploding economically and politically in real time. Who cares what goes on in this genocidal cesspool?
“Grow up, join the sect. If not you’ll be left out when we all become AI-augmented and fly to Mars”
Thank you for taking your valuable time away from huffing gas to share your invaluable insights.
join the sect says the person who’s against a glorified calculator?
My calculator has 100% accuracy, always, it’s never wrong. If AI were like that it’d be great.
And calculators can’t be tweaked to subtly change messaging to push a narrative, or a product, or whatever.
Calculators didn’t steal the work of all humanity to try to put them out of a job.
Calculators don’t really get used for scams by cloning people’s voices.
Could go on and on how calculators and LLMs are different.
And calculators can’t be tweaked to subtly change messaging to push a narrative, or a product, or whatever.
the internet does the same! so TV! they can do the same with books! i think we should burn them, what do you think?
Calculators didn’t steal the work of all humanity to try to put them out of a job.
ai didn’t do that either, it was capitalists. and as far as i know its a good thing that they “steal jobs” having less jobs means you can play more. except under capitalism. oh, so it seems you’re complaining about capitalism here, ok, let’s move on.
Calculators don’t really get used for scams by cloning people’s voices.
ok, away with e-mail, i got an e-mail that was clearly a scam a couple of weeks ago.
Could go on and on how calculators and LLMs are different.
yes, you could. the issue is that you’re not complaining about AI, you’re complaining about tangential stuff to ai, most of which are not AI directly or are temporary shit that can be modified. sure, water issue. that changes. processing power. that can be more efficient and it will be. so fucking please complain about AI.
wait till you find out how floating point works 🤣
Same with statistics and probability. But they still have a point.
Which is that they don’t understand how statistics and probability work. The LLM generalizes patterns that get imprinted on the neural network during training, and then these patterns are expressed in the given context during inference. The stochastic aspect of the system is what allows the LLM to adopt generalized training to the specific problem being solved. So, the outputs LLMs produced are clearly not random in a sense of playing bingo because randomness is not the dominant property of the system.
Arguing for the use of LLM on lemmy? Bold move. Don’t forget that 90% of the people are unemployed, jealous commies, attacking everybody who has even the slightest positive thought about LLM’s
