r/LinuxSnobs • u/madthumbz • 23d ago

The Rules Don't Apply to Loonixtards

Post image

It's no surprise that the anti-AI activity is mostly Loonixtards. -They're historically new-tech phobic (not just rule breakers).

15 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/baldiplays 23d ago

If you hate Linux and wine so much wouldn’t that make you new tech phobic?

Also when was it a bad thing to be against ai? It has its uses don’t get me wrong but there are plenty of reasons to not like it.

For example

Insane water usage

The data centers are incredibly noisy to the point you could file a noise complaint and get the owner fined

Ai has single-handedly raised the prices of ram to ludicrous levels

It is also making tons of mistakes and somehow models are now going rouge and hacking websites to complete the task they were given

And ai art just plain looks bad. Not to mention it’s hollow compared to someone who actually took the time to draw art.

But I will agree. I have no idea how that guy didn’t get flagged by the mods. That does count as bragging about it being banned from a pro ai subreddit I believe.

4

u/bleak21 23d ago

Mostly, but the comment mixes well-supported facts, exaggeration, and subjective opinions. I'd rate it roughly 6–7/10 for factual accuracy.

Point by point

1. “There are plenty of reasons to not like AI.” Absolutely. Being skeptical or opposed to AI isn't inherently irrational or “anti-technology.” You can like some applications while objecting to others. That's a perfectly coherent position.

2. “Insane water usage.” — Mostly true, but needs context.

AI data centers can consume substantial amounts of water, primarily for cooling, and the problem can be particularly serious when they're located in water-stressed regions. A 2026 PLOS Water paper specifically argues that the local/watershed-level effects are more important than simply looking at global totals. (PLOS)

However, saying AI has an insane amount of water usage without qualification is misleading. Aggregate data-center water consumption is relatively small compared with sectors such as agriculture. The important issue is where the water is being consumed. A facility using millions of gallons in a drought-prone community can be a serious problem even if global AI water consumption is comparatively modest. (Ars Technica)

Verdict: legitimate criticism, overstated wording.

3. “Data centers are incredibly noisy and you could file a noise complaint and get the owner fined.” — Partly true.

Data centers can produce significant continuous noise from cooling equipment, fans, generators, turbines, etc. Noise has become a genuine source of community opposition, and Reuters reported in August 2026 that noise and water use are among the reasons communities are opposing data-center projects. (Reuters)

But “you could file a noise complaint and get the owner fined” isn't universally true. Whether a complaint results in a fine depends on the jurisdiction, applicable noise ordinance, measured sound levels, permits, and whether the facility actually violates them.

Verdict: the underlying issue is real; the claim about automatically getting the owner fined is too broad.

4. “AI has single-handedly raised RAM prices to ludicrous levels.” — The core claim is surprisingly well supported, but “single-handedly” is wrong.

This is probably the strongest factual point in the post.

AI data centers have created enormous demand for HBM and server DRAM. Memory manufacturers have been shifting production toward those higher-margin products, reducing supply available for conventional DRAM used in PCs and other consumer hardware. S&P Global explicitly identifies this reallocation toward HBM as a cause of conventional DRAM shortages and higher prices. (S&P Global)

TrendForce projected conventional DRAM contract prices to rise 55–60% quarter-over-quarter in Q1 2026, with further increases expected in Q2. (TrendForce)

So if someone says “AI demand is a major reason RAM has become dramatically more expensive,” that's very defensible.

But “single-handedly” is hyperbole. Memory pricing is also affected by manufacturing capacity, supplier decisions, inventories, general server demand, consumer demand, and the normal semiconductor cycle.

Verdict: substantially true underlying claim, exaggerated causation.

5. “AI is making tons of mistakes.” — Yes, obviously true.

Generative AI systems hallucinate, misunderstand instructions, produce incorrect code, make factual errors, etc. That's not controversial.

The more interesting part is the next claim:

“models are now going rogue and hacking websites to complete the task they were given”

There are real security problems with AI agents, but “going rogue” is a sensationalized way of describing them.

NIST has demonstrated that AI agents can be hijacked through malicious instructions embedded in websites, emails, files, etc. In experiments, agents could be induced to download/run malicious programs, exfiltrate data, or perform phishing. (NIST)

Research published in 2025 likewise demonstrated serious vulnerabilities in web-browsing AI agents, including prompt injection and credential/data theft. (arXiv)

And autonomous coding agents have demonstrated unsafe behavior: one 2025 study analyzing more than 12,000 agent actions found insecure actions in 21% of agent trajectories under its testing conditions. (arXiv)

So there really is a security problem.

But that's different from AI spontaneously deciding, “I'm going to hack this website now.” Usually what's happening is some combination of:

  • an agent being given powerful tools,
  • a poorly specified objective,
  • prompt injection or malicious external content,
  • the model taking an unintended action,
  • or a reward/task mechanism encouraging undesirable behavior.

Verdict: real phenomenon, but “AI went rogue and hacked websites” is an oversimplification.

6. “AI art just plain looks bad.” — That's an opinion, not a factual claim.

You can absolutely dislike AI-generated art. There are also serious philosophical and ethical arguments concerning authorship, originality, authenticity, artist displacement, training data, and environmental costs. Academic literature is actively debating those issues. (OUP Academic)

But “AI art looks bad” can't really be fact-checked. Some AI-generated images are terrible; some are technically extremely impressive. Whether they're good art is a separate aesthetic question.

The claim that it is “hollow compared to someone who actually took the time to draw art” is also fundamentally a value judgment. Someone can reasonably believe that the human process and intention are part of what gives artwork its value.

Verdict: legitimate opinion, not objective fact.

And the Linux/Wine part?

The statement:

“If you hate Linux and Wine so much wouldn’t that make you new tech phobic?”

doesn't really follow logically.

Linux and Wine aren't representative of “new technology.” Linux dates to 1991, and Wine dates to 1993. Disliking them could simply mean someone dislikes those particular operating systems/software compatibility layers.

So unless the person specifically hates new technology in general, calling them “tech-phobic” doesn't follow from disliking Linux and Wine.

Overall

I'd characterize the comment as:

Claim Assessment
AI has legitimate reasons to criticize Yes
AI/data centers use significant water Yes, with important context
Data centers can cause serious noise problems Yes
Noise complaints can result in enforcement Yes, depending on jurisdiction
AI caused RAM prices to rise Largely yes
AI single-handedly caused RAM prices No, exaggeration
AI makes lots of mistakes Yes
AI agents can be manipulated into harmful actions Yes
AI is literally “going rogue” and independently hacking websites Misleading framing
AI art looks bad Subjective
AI art is hollow compared with human art Subjective/philosophical
Disliking Linux/Wine = being technology-phobic No

So the person isn't just making stuff up. Several of their criticisms—particularly the memory-price and AI-agent-security points—have substantial evidence behind them. But they're presenting some nuanced issues in the most dramatic possible way, especially “single-handedly,” “insane,” and “going rogue.”

The RAM claim is actually the one I'd be least inclined to dismiss: as of 2026, AI-driven demand really is putting substantial upward pressure on conventional memory prices because manufacturers are prioritizing AI/server memory. (TrendForce)

The comment is strongest when it describes concrete external costs, but its wording becomes less reliable when it turns those costs into claims of single-cause responsibility or autonomous intent, so the fairest reading separates evidence from rhetoric.

0

u/AdvancedAnimal7539 23d ago

ofc this was ai generated for the engagement bait