> Average people seem to think they are fucking awesome

Average people who wants to go home from work and game are angry at AI for raising the ram prices.

Average person who wants to own the stuff and not have things on cloud are angry at AI for raising prices 5 times in such a short period of time.

Have you talked to an average person and how they use AI? They use it as a glorified no-code editor (I would admit not no-code editor itself but rather the vibe-coding aspects with no regards to what tech stack is being used, how its being deployed, literally anythoing) and search engine. Refer to how things like lovable etc.

A search engine which can make some pretty wrong cases which can literally lead to near death like scenarios all while being completely trust me bro attitude.

A man asked AI for health advice and it cooked every brain cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftBiNu0ZNU

Normal people use AI to confide in it secrets, seek therapy somehow. And the same AI generates AI pyschosis.

Now coming to tech industry: Tech industry is worried about that such levels of democratization just means that nobody is going to pay for them yet at the same time, we will see projects who are completely created by AI seek money. It's this weird mush where if you are a genuine guy who just loved computing, who loved tinkering, yeah we're offloading that capability to AI

I have seen this even more and more with as agents want to get more autonomous or we are letting them be. The projects generated feel hollow to me. I don't consider myself a full fledged programmer right now and AI did supercharge me and made me have projects. Nowadays, it just feels like prompt ---> (Time) --> Output.

It just feels hollow and AI companies did it by abusing the passion of these same developers and scraping stack overflow, scraping github and having all disregards for properties.

People could spend years creating a book about say postgres and an AI took it, ripped it in half and then decided to use that info and not even give credits.

All, at the same time that AI is being pushed down on employees. Some just don't want to have it but nope, they must. they are forced.

Essentially engineering with AI feels like it becomes a marketing gimmick. Anyone who can market somehow (Ahem ahem Openclaw) can get a job at OpenAi all because in some attention hype breeds hype and they had stars and people talked about stars on twitter, and more people found it and starred it and so on and started using it

Turns out that nowadays there are allegations being made against Openclaw

> Star velocity shocked analysts. Moreover, the repository added roughly 220,000 stars within 84 days of launch. In contrast, Kubernetes needed five years for similar numbers. Many builders call the growth organic. Nevertheless, some observers link the surge to hype, bot accounts, and headline attention, fueling the GitHub Stars Controversy. Independent GitHub Archive pulls show several single-day jumps above 25,000 stars. Such abrupt spikes often signal scripted starring, yet no formal audit confirms abuse. These patterns feed community debate. Consequently, trust in the star metric has weakened, prompting calls for verification.

https://www.aicerts.ai/news/openclaws-github-stars-controver...

The marketing industry has been very closely linked to sometimes scam prone areas and shady areas of the internet and engineering used to be clean from all of this for the most part. Now, the norm to me feels like buy github stars and buy twitter attention or pray to be in an algorithm which you can't read but it reads every move you make, and yes this is your business strategy now

Have you looked at truly AI-first companies and what they do/like how do they generate numbers in the first place?

These are two distinct points. I don't think that people of here would be any mad if someone made a little prototyping script for themselves with the power of this Phd that you mention. Heck, these same programmers that you now call gatekeepers have never gatekeeped much of it. They worked and contributed to open source for free while being severely undermainted.

The audacity to call these same people gatekeepers shockens me because open source people if anything are the Opposite of that and yet AI stole their rights and their licenses from them. An AI can take AGPL code and then somehow churn it into MIT tada! It doesn't even have to give any accredits when it gets trained on AGPL or ANY type of code, no matter how restrictive or permissive.

these are the same people btw who are on programming forums which yes at times did have moderation issue but still tried to help noobs learn for free. They did it because they loved tinkering with computers

That's my take on it. feel free to ask for more things if you may as I would love to tell you more but for the sake of this discussion, I think enough can be relevant.

It's absolutely ironical to call say the Open source people gatekeepers because AI violated their rights and licenses.

Calling Open source Contributors gatekeepers might as well be an oxymoron.

Edit: I have been downvoted in so little time after I wrote this comment that I am pretty sure that someone might not have even read my comment and had it downvoted.

The topic can be at times too polarizing to even have a discussion.

Oh well. That's completely okay but to any human who read this, I know my writing can be sporadic and it was written in much frustration over how people try to frame AI as this harbingers of liberty. I absolutely think that's not the case and its viewing things from a very rose tinted glasses.

So thanks to all the humans who read my comment and were patient haha!

I really appreciate this patience in a world of TLDR and I wish you to have a nice day!

US tech firms pledge at White House to bear costs of energy for datacenters