Linus Torvalds used Claude Code to rewrite how Linux reads cached files
startupfortune.com
startupfortune.com
Everybody wants to pretend that their god does everything wonderful, and yet ask them why there are starving kids...
Truth doesnt need evangelism.
Just look how many posts are making extra ordinary claims about how AI is doing wonderful things.
Nobody posts multiple times here or any social media, that the sky is blue because its a truth that doesnt need publicity.
"your" take is ignorant of incredibly basic philosophy, like solipsism.
it's a trite variation on the tired internet tropes of "ai psychosis", "mental illness", "mind virus", "groupthink", "hivemind", and so on.
if you somehow do not recognize this, that should greatly concern you.
> Truth doesnt need evangelism.
for the record, it's not that i don't find this article "evangelism". i do, and to the extent it is so, it is a bit cringe, like all "pushes" are. but what you describe as religion is well explained as cheap seo and marketing. it's the current hotness, and Torvalds is a pseudo-celebrity. people participating, in contrast, is also well covered by regular tribalism, which the internet has forever fanned the flames of.
but also no, unless you're some sort of oracle of this world, you very obviously do sometimes need to be convinced about things that others already know as correct and true. the act of having to convince people is not a signal for distinguishing lie from truth. the ratios of people behind each stance isn't either. i know this, for the simple reason that i have been wrong in my life before.
> Nobody posts multiple times here or any social media, that the sky is blue because its a truth that doesnt need publicity.
try in winter when the sky is white?
give a brief attempt to substituting "truth" with "tacit experience". suddenly the difference will pop out, and you'll immediately see why "evangelism" exists without having to defer to internet tropes to handwave it away.
it'd seem that people experience things from different perspectives and to different extents. it'd also seem that a great way to egg people on is to assert the opposite of their lived experience (their truth).
relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50047422
same era where incredibly basic facts of the world are routinely denied on social media by the way, so bit of a curveball to bring up. at this point, i expect literally anything being debated.
Your reply is nothing but a personal slur, ad hom and completely avoids addressing my observation.
> for the record, it's not that i don't find this article "evangelism". i do, and to the extent it is so, it is a bit cringe, like all "pushes" are.
A push IS a form of evangelism. Thats precisely my point.
Nobody needs to push the fact the sky is blue because this is a basic truth.
> but also no, unless you're some sort of oracle of this world, you very obviously do sometimes need to be convinced about things that others already know as correct and true. the act of having to convince people is not a signal for distinguishing lie from truth. the ratios of people behind each stance isn't either. i know this, for the simple reason that i have been wrong in my life before.
Here we go again, personal attacks.
When you have to drop that low its obvious who has lost.
> try in winter when the sky is white?
Dont be silly.
Not in Australia.
> ad hom
The reason I listed off the tropes "your observation" is a rehash of, was to highlight how in itself it's simply an ad hominem.
If you needed that spelled out, here you go. I know, calling people religious [fanatics] being just an insult, tailor made for ad hominem? Now that'd be just way too low...
> Nobody needs to push the fact the sky is blue because this is a basic truth.
See also you a few lines later:
>> try in winter when the sky is white?
> Dont be silly. Not in Australia.
So is it a Truth™, or just a shared and durable experience? Because suffice to say, places other than Australia do exist, and so said [lack of an] experience does have limits.
Am I evangelizing the existence of a white sky? Or am I just defending an equally tacit fact, that the sky is not always blue, from being denied and lied about? Does this make me religious all of a sudden? I'd hope not.
> Here we go again, personal attacks.
No, the concept of an oracle, and the argument (sarcastically) laid out involving it, was not meant to be just a personal attack there. An oracle is a genuine philosophical instrument. Re-read it under that lens if you care.
Here's a different version if you remain distracted by the sarcasm within.
Suppose being right and wrong is an actual possibility, and that I'm wrong while you're right.
You try convincing me. Under your own logic, "truth doesn't need evangelizing", and all manners of "pushing" something is magically evangelism. Therefore, we have two options:
- by virtue of you attempting to convince me, I'll be rendered right, and you'll be rendered wrong
- the preposition is contradicted
The latter obviously doesn't compute, while the former invites semantic appraisal. And so doing exactly that, what I'm saying is that no, the act of convincing another person doesn't render the person doing the convincing automatically false, unlike what you're proposing. Your rule of thumb is unsound. Since you understood this as a caricature, I believe you agree?
The other, possibly more charitable way to read what you were proposing is a sort of majority rule, where a majority consensus means truth. I'd expect it to be self-evident that no, that is no logical guarantee either.
You're welcome to put forward an actual observation that isn't just a veiled ad hominem itself, preferably with an actual argument that can be materially replied to. Or you can admit to having been simply parroting a dehumanizing trope, without giving it even two entire seconds of thought.
You're proposing that if something is disputed, then that's for sure wrong. And that if something is being promoted, then that's for sure deficient. Is it really so difficult to see why that's absurd? Seriously?
I gave a list of several parallels to evangelist and cult activities as a comparison against AI.
I challenged you to dispute any of them and you havent. Each of your replies are continuous unfounded childish insults.
Let me ask you again, why are so many people making posts of any lkind about with extraordinary claims about how AI is wonderful ?
WHY ?
> Let me ask you again, why are so many people making posts of any lkind about with extraordinary claims about how AI is wonderful ?
What is so difficult to grasp about the difference between evangelism and promotion?
The sky is whatever color, and you're set on being holed up in your room with the blinds down. How would you know if somebody didn't try to convince you to look outside and check?
Surely you understand the counterargument now? People just fucking like this shit, and want others to try it! That's all dude. It's really just that simple. No religion required.
People go, fork out $20 for Claude, try the fucking thing, and see that just like you see that the sky is blue, the thing is actually fucking awesome. So that gets them excited, and makes some of them even promote it, to tell others they should give it a try, because it worked for xyz, and might work for them too. This is cultish behavior how exactly? Is every social behavior a cult behavior to you?
Have you ever enjoyed a song in your life? A movie? A book? Never felt the desire to share it with others, and see if they like it too? Were these acts of religious evangelism too?
I will repeat here for convenience.
Musk and Big Tech.
The presentations of Big Tech leaders who also are trying to hype up are mirrors of how tv evangelists also make grand statements on stage.
> The sky is whatever color, and you're set on being holed up in your room with the blinds down. How would you know if somebody didn't try to convince you to look outside and check?
Most people will accept the Sky is blue as a basic truth. I hope i dont have to explain how the weather causes this to vary over time, and that at night it goes black because there is no sun.
Are you really that broken ?
> People go, fork out $20 for Claude, try the fucking thing, and see that just like you see that the sky is blue, the thing is actually fucking awesome.
Awesome at what exactly ?
Producing stupid "fake" videos of cats and rainbows ?
Can AI fix the weather or give you clean water and chemical free food ?
The code AI generates is poor quality, it may spit out a lot but its poor quality.
Please show me the new AI rewrite of Windows, which requires significantly less memory and retains perfect backward compatibility and does not require patches every tuesday.
> Have you ever enjoyed a song in your life? A movie? A book? Never felt the desire to share it with others, and see if they like it too? Were these acts of religious evangelism too?
Here we go, typical reaction that follows a religions person when you question their god, you start inventing things about my life that you cant possibly know about. How about you actually address what i say instead of invent things you know are not true, because you dont have supporting evidence.
> What is so difficult to grasp about the difference between evangelism and promotion?
Promotion, evanglism, advertising are all synonyms for the same act, exaggerating and twisting the truth.
Coke is not it, Red Bull does not give you wings, they are just a drink nothing more or less. To pretend they are anything more is pathetic.
Autopilot is not a human replacement, people have died. Many women have ruined their lives because they believe in the toxic message shared by the fashion industry.
I think i know what im talking about - look at my github. What ive done there is far from trivial or average. I think i have an understanding of what complexity and how to build something big that works.
You hope not to have to explain how weather or nighttime changes the color of the sky, after I already mentioned the seasons sometimes painting it white, meaning you're unable to keep track of what was already said here.
You ask me if I'm "broken", and accuse me of inventing things about your life, clearly demonstrating that you fail to understand metaphors, examples, hypotheticals, and other forms of figurative speech. Or at least pretend to, only when it's me using these constructions.
You engage in goalpost moving with the Windows rewrite example, given the very well reported on examples for rewrites of countless old games and even entire suites of productivity tools, like Adobe software. You further accused me earlier of ad hominem, after engaging in ad hominem, then just made an appeal to your authority below, referencing a GitHub you do not link, not here, not in your bio.
You refer to physical things not being helped by a software, and somehow that being surprising to you. You explicitly make a claim that things are only awesome if they solve world hunger for children specifically. Then flip flop to fixing the climate, then flip flop to eliminating "chemicals" in food. This is an utterly insane worldview and there's nothing to disprove on it, for they are opinions, of the outlandish and nonsense kind, not arguments. You nevertheless do insist on wanting me to do so, of course, meaning the very basics of mathematical logic are somehow unfamiliar to you, despite your proclaimed programming experience (only logical statements have truth values).
You explicitly conflate advertising, evangelism, and cult behavior, clearly demonstrating your inability of grasping that as societies scale, information needs to travel, which makes advertisement, news reporting, promotional activities, and so on a necessity. You thereby fail to recognize you're laundering in your judgement regarding the nature of the promotional activity, even after many examples demonstrating so, and a logical derivation explaining how. People may feel compelled and motivated to convince someone of something, yet you explicitly only consider malicious or otherwise degenerate motivations as existing.
You fail to grasp basic dilemmas, like how an autopilot doesn't need to have zero death rate to be a potential human replacement, it just has to have better-than-human death rate. A corvid could make this judgement correctly, yet your historied programmer self apparently cannot.
And you ask me why I'd insult you? You wonder why your observations go unaddressed? The cause is one and the same, now robustly evidenced, and it's very simple: you're unable to process what I'm telling you. And even if you were able to, you'd still be unable to make a point coherently and cogently. Even knowing your epistemic limits escapes you.
I give up. I cannot reason with what doesn't.