Being a Luddite isn’t going to help anyone.

Not taking a side in this thread, but you might wanna learn more about the Luddites. Their story is very relevant to today.

I can’t do basic, boring, uninteresting stuff.

But if you tell me “I’m not sure this is technically possible. Like, it should be, in theory, but nobody’s ever done it before…” I will work on that for 56 hours without eating or sleeping.

A lot of it probably isn’t legal, but who’s gonna prosecute them?

Whatever specific class I am, my play style is definitely “glass cannon”.

Anthropic, without an ounce of self-awareness: “Hey, just cuz you used AI to change it doesn’t mean you can copy our stuff and use it to compete against us!”

Annyone

We are ruinning language for the sake of engagement.

Went from believing “yes” is inevitable to believing “no” is inevitable instead of learning the lesson that most of this is just random

In context, it sounds like he’s “disappointed a lot” by people choosing to use AI, which is a crucial distinction. His objection is about the kind of society we’re sleepwalking into, not the technical maturity of the current crop of software.

AI’s generated text is “too dry and too perfect, and I want something from a human being, and I’m disappointed a lot.”

I agree with Prime on most things, but I think he’s getting this one wrong.

There are more options than just “light-hearted satire” and “earnest business idea”.

The FOSDEM talk is silly, and reads like a skit, but it has a gravely serious undertone.

The security guy has posted on Twitter “I still can’t believe he hooked it up to Stripe lol”.

Meanwhile the LinkedIn of the other guy describes him as a “researcher of political economy of FOSS” at Rochester Institute of Technology, and he runs a non-profit about FOSS for humanitarian aid.

He’s also been very active replying to people talking about the conference talk or the Malus site, asking whether they think this should be legal and what we can do to protect the future of open source.

I think these are people who take this threat very seriously, and are willing to expose themselves to litigation in order to force the issue into courts.

Everything is a third kind of thing that unifies the physical and mental

The vulnerability is coming from inside the house

Yeah, items are licensed according to where they’re sold, not made. “More oversight” makes no sense.

So lemme get this straight:

They want a bunch of AIs to fill the internet with slop, potentially making our infosphere impenetrable… and the way they wanna do it is to fill the sky with junk, potentially making our atmosphere impenetrable.

Just, help me out. Am I misunderstanding? This is supposed to be a good idea?

I just know that when 404 Media reported on the ManyVids founder publicly slipping into AI psychosis, they mentioned that ManyVids was often described as being the only platform to give workers a fair deal.

Middle ages:

Peasants share common land and tools — it’s not so much that they collectively “own” it, but that “ownership” is not a concept that applies, because the land is an obligation and not a product.

Then come the enclosure acts, which take all of the land that the commoners have spent their lives contributing to, and give it to the wealthy.

And then come some of the bloodiest revolts in history. And coinciding with this, you have the Luddites objecting to the wealthy replacing their common workspaces with factories that maim and kill people.

The Luddites attack the factories, and destroy the machines. And the British eventually defeat them, using an occupying army larger than the initial wave they send to fight Napoleon.

Digital age:

Peasants share common online spaces — it’s not so much that they “own” them, but that they share a mutual obligation to each other to maintain these spaces.

Then come the tech oligarchs with their AI, and…

Unlike most existing transport research, which has employed surveys or observations, this study applied an intervention—i.e., a deliberate action or treatment introduced by the researchers to examine its effects on participants. An intervention involves actively changing a variable (such as car use) to assess its impact. In this case, we asked ten participants in each city to live car-free for twenty days. The purpose of the intervention was twofold:

1. Study the process of change itself. We examined the reasons why participants decided to partake in the study, what challenges they faced, how they coped with those challenges, and what factors contributed to successful change.

2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the financial incentives that we provided. Were they sufficient to induce permanent change?

Going car-free: an interventional study in Australia and Saudi Arabia

Enclosure never ended, they just keep finding new “commons”

Tyring

Also there is such a thing as Chihuahua cuisine.